User talk:Jsun2148/Climbing mantella/Yunfeng Ge Peer Review

peer review
The lead section covers most content of the article. The only section the author didn't mention is conservation status, which I recommend include it in the lead section. The leading section is a little bit long, which provided too much detail for the parent care. It will be great if the author can summarize the last paragraph in lead section and make it more concise. The content include both general description and different behaviors of the frog, which are all very relevant to the topic. Also all information comes from articles published after 2000, which means the information is really up to date. The habitat and distribution section is a bit underrepresented as it only has a few sentenses. Thus I would recommend add more information to that. I do like the way the author mentioned the specific national parks. Overall the flow of the all the content is really smooth and easy to follow. I like how the author divided the content in small paragraphs of 100-200 words. This really helps readers to read it. Citations are well distributed in the article and are all from credential resources. Yunfeng Ge (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)