User talk:Honorherring/sandbox

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 is very descriptive and discusses many important things about the species. One thing that impressed me was the organization of the article. Everything is easy to locate and there are many important things about the species included in the article.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
 * There are no changes that I would suggest making to the article. The article holds a lot of important information about the species and I don’t see anything that is missing. The article consists of many pictures of the species and descriptions under each picture, allowing the reader to have many visuals to look at while reading about the species.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * there isn't one specific thing that I see wrong with the article.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what?


 * I am also editing an article related to a species of frog, so there are many things that could be useful in my own article. One thing that stands out, is the fact that this species also contains toxic skin, much like the frog that I am reviewing. So, there are many things in the skin section that I could possibly add 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?
 * The sections are very well organized. The order in which they are placed is very nice and I wouldn’t change anything. As for the information being added, the author hasn’t added their changes into the article yet, but I would place the content in the locomotion section.

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?
 * Each section is very full in length and important to the article. One section that seems a bit pointless is the cultural belief section, because it discusses how frogs are seen in many fairytale movies and other places that depict frogs in their art.

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
 * No, the article just discusses the evolution, physiology, morphology, etc of frogs.

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."
 * I didn’t see any phrases that seems to not be neutral. Everything in the article is informational towards frogs.

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?
 * Most of the statements in the article come from reliable sources, like journal articles.

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.
 * This article contains hundreds of sources, so they are all really balanced throughout the article.

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!
 * All of the statements in the article seem to be referenced in the sources listed.Javenemani (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)