User talk:Gp318/New Mexico spadefoot toad

peer review

 * 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?
 * 2) The article effectively presents research findings on the New Mexico spadefoot toad and its response to climate change. It clearly conveys key points of study such as the impact of water loss on tadpole development. The language is concise and scientific.


 * 1) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
 * 2) You could improve the article by providing more context and background information on the spadefoot toad and the importance of studying its response to climate change.


 * 1) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 2) There’s always room for more detail and research information.


 * 1) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?
 * 2) The clear and concise scientific language used in the article could be a skill very applicable to my article.


 * 1) 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?
 * 2) The information does make sense where they are adding it.


 * 1) 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?
 * 2) The sections seem adequately balanced in terms of importance, considering the subject matter.


 * 1) Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
 * 2) The article primarily presents research findings and correlations without explicitly trying to convince the reader of a particular point of view. It maintains a neutral tone, which is appropriate.


 * 1) 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."
 * 2) I don’t see any based language and the article seems to maintain a very neutral an objective tone, which is a good thing.


 * 1) 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?
 * 2) Yes the information is from reliable sources.


 * 1) 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.
 * 2) I think there is a good balance and no reason for heavy change that would be sufficient for a answer to this question.


 * 1) 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!
 * 2) No, I think it is all sourced properly.

Clandry10 (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)