User talk:Javenemani/sandbox

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?

The article edit does well in introducing the concept of toxins as well as explain how Oophaga sylvatica utilizes the toxins it ingests

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

There are a few grammatical errors that could be fixed as well as adjusting some of the sentence structure.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

'''Other than minor grammar edits, the article seems to be well written. The only thing I can think of is maybe include some of the specific toxins that the Oophaga sylvatica is known to digest and use in its own defense mechanisms.'''

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

My article deals more with structural and skeletal adaptations so our two topics are very different, but I really liked the way you introduced your information and kept it straight forward despite it being a very complicated and in depth topic.

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 location of where this section will be added fits in nicely with the rest of the article.

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?

'''The section feels appropriate in length for the importance of the information it provides, but the article only has the introductory/lead section to compare it to. '''

7.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

The article has a very neutral point of view and does not try to convince the reader of a specific viewpoint.

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."

There were no phrases in the edit that did not feel 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?

I looked up the sources and saw that they were scientific articles, but they need to be formally cited in the draft.

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.

Each source provided about the same amount of information, therefore making the information added to be more balanced in terms of viewpoint.

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!

Everything in the article comes from the listed sources.

Jordanviv02 (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Jordanviv02