User talk:AndrewGauthier1/Oophaga sylvatica

First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? This article provide the information in a way that is thorough. The vocabulary also matches the information already presented in the article.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? The addition to the article seems a bit lengthy it might be better to simplify the sentences that are on the same topic. This will make the addition easier to read

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Rearranging the information added as a new paragraph under toxins might flow better. I think you should be able to relate both articles into one paragraph because I don’t think the information about deforestation fits where it is now.

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? Really enjoyed the simplicity of the language used in the article.

Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? Specifically, does the information they are adding to the article make sense where they are putting it? As mentioned before I think relating both topics under toxins would flow better. But separating it as a different paragraph

Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? The. Information added seems like needed information in the article but I do think you could simplify the first set of additions as it seems repetitive.

Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No the information added is objective.

Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y.” No all the language is neutral.

Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? The article is missing the references.

Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. Sources weren’t added so it is difficult to see what information was gathered from what article

Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! No sources were included. Rmarin8 (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Rachel Marin

Wikipedia Peer review BIOL 4155				Your name: Eva Braud

Article you are reviewing: Oophaga sylvatica

1.	First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? -	The article seems to do a good job at elaborating on the diet of this species as well as their defense mechanisms.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? -	Maybe explaining the effects of reduced alkaloids to this species could be a helpful addition to this article.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? -	Maybe explaining the significance of alkaloids in this species’ diet and toxins could help improve the article.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? -	There isn’t anything that I thought could be applicable to my article from this article.

5.	Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? Specifically, does the information they are adding to the article make sense where they are putting it? -	If the information is in the diet and/or toxins section of article, it could be a good order and improvement overall.

6.	Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? -	Nothing seems to be off topic, the paragraphs seem to tie together well. Nothing seems unnecessary, and the length is equal to its importance to the article’s subject.

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? -	There does not seem to be biased or convincing of a certain side.

8.	Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." -	Everything in this article appears to be neutral and appropriate for the Wikipedia page.

9.	Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? -	There were highlighted sourced sections of the article that allowed you to click on certain words and see more information about the sources, but I did not see any added citations in the article posted in the sandbox.

10.	Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. -	The article seems to be balanced without leaning towards a single point of view too heavily.

11.	Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! -	There could be added citations in the first paragraph at the end where it talks about alkaloid variety and diet information. Also, in the second paragraph where saxiphilin expression is mentioned there does not seem to be any citation.

Evabraud (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page article on the Oophaga sylvatica is very underdeveloped but that allows for plenty of information to be added. There could be a new section for diet, behavior, reproduction, conservation status, or ecology and behavior. Since there is such a huge amount of information that is yet to be added to this  article, I think that what was added here added much needed details. Sources are not presented yet but the presentation of the information is much more equal. I think of all the new sections that I named previously the most important thing that needs to be added is a section for the frog’s distribution. Being able to know and see with an actual map where these frogs have been found is invaluable to someone researching this species. A second best after that would need to be its diet. This will provide us with basic information about how the species acquires the nutrients and protein it needs for growth. Axel sauce (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)