User talk:Javenemani/Oophaga sylvatica/Honorherring Peer Review

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? -Overall, there is very little information in the article, but it does a good job of introducing the species. The new content is very important in explaining a topic that had not yet been presented and does a good job of informing the readers of more about the species.

2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? -The only possible change I would mention would be to consider combining the second and third sentences into one statement in order to reduce word usage to make it a little more concise.

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? -I think that the improvement stated in the last question is the only thing I would consider changing. Overall it is Honorherring (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)well written and gives unbiased information pertaining to the species.

4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? If so, what? -It did a good job of explaining the mechanism for this defense mechanism without being too wordy or confusing the reader.

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? -Yes, the sections are ordered in a way that flows well and is easy for the reader to follow.

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? -Being that this is an article with very little information to begin with, the new content is extremely valuable to this article in informing the reader more about the species Oophaga sylvatica. This section is crucial because the species is most widely known for this defense mechanism and it adds information on how that defense mechanism is used.

7. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? -No it presents unbiased information on the mechanisms of defense, there is no point to be had.

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." -No it presents unbiased information on the mechanisms of defense, there is no point to be had.

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? -Yes, the sources listed are very recent and both published within scientific journals.

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. -I'm not sure because there are no in texts citations.

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! -None of the sources are cited within the text, though the resources are very reputable, it is hard to be sure where the information came from. Overall the article is very well written, just need to add these citations so that the reader knows where the information was found.