User talk:Gp318/New Mexico spadefoot toad/Daniazevedo02 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? 1.	The article does a good job of describing the behavior of the toads, specifically when describing the odors that they secrete.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? 1.	The article does not have a lot of information, so adding information about conservation would be very beneficial. The addition of this research will allow the article to be significantly more well-rounded.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? 1.	The most important thing the author can do is add information on the physiological effects of climate change on these toads.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? 1.	Research on the effects of climate change on scent gland secretions could be a potential addition that I could make to my 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? 1.	The information they are adding makes sense to go after the taxonomy section. As per the species topic guide, conservation sections should follow taxonomy.

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? 1.	Most sections are equal in length; however, the description section could benefit from the addition of a few more details. Nothing in the article seems unnecessary or off-topic.

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? 1.	No.

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." 1.	No, all of the words and phrases in this article are neutral.

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? 1.	Only roughly half of the sources in the article are from reliable sources. However, both sources the author found are reliable.

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. 1.	No, the article is fairly balanced.

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! 1.	The “behavior” section of the article seems to need more sources based on the information presented. Daniazevedo02 (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)