User:Roosterchair/Phyllomedusa sauvagii/ThatsCrazey Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Roosterchair


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Roosterchair/Phyllomedusa_sauvagii?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Phyllomedusa sauvagii

Evaluate the drafted changes
Content:

"P. sauvagii can tolerate a wide range of body temperatures between about 20 and 40°C (68-104°F)." - Might need a citation for this. I also think it might be unnecessary to include the Fahrenheit conversion as temperature conversions are readily available but that's a personal preference.

There are instances where you use words such as "anurans" among others) that may not be readily known to the average reader. It would be neat to include hyperlinks within your article to other Wikipedia articles so your readers can more readily inform themselves if needed.

This might be a personal preference but I'd prefer the common name of the animal to be the title of the article as well as the first name used to refer to the animal with the genus and species coming afterwards.

Overall, your content is relevant to the topic and headings you chose to focus on. Note that this is a Wikipedia article and it might improve readability to primarily use the common name for the animal rather than the Latin name even though the Latin name is ironically shorter. You've also done a good job at paying attention to both sections in roughly equal amounts.

Don't be afraid to add multiple citations to a sentence if it's supported by multiple sources!

Tone and Balance:

As I mentioned earlier, paying attention to who your audience might be is important. Using reader-friendly words when possible and including links to other pages will be beneficial.

Tone is neutral and seeks purely to inform the reader. Nothing struck me as being biased.

Sources and Reference:

Sources from the first section of your article are all from the 1970s which means they're not terribly recent. Maybe there's been no new research on this topic since then but maybe you could try searching for a more recent source corroborating the information you found.

The second half of your article has more current sources from the 2000s and 2010s which is good. All that information is reasonably recent.

Just about all the sources come from credible scientific journals so the quality of your information is good and reliable.

Organization:

For each section it might make sense to break that chunk up into 2 or 3 paragraphs when you start talking about new subjects. I see that's been done in the live article, however.

Your spelling and grammar are superb so there's no issues there.

It doesn't feel too wordy - meaning the information you're trying to communicate is clear and concise.

Overall Impressions:

Overall, your article contribution is excellent and would make a fine addition to the existing article. The page still seems a bit bare so it might make sense to add information about morphology even though that doesn't necessarily relate to ecology or physiology. If not, then no matter.

I'd double check and look through and make sure all the information you've stated which was pulled from your sources has been referenced.

Definitely enjoyable and interesting to read.