Talk:Ringed salamander

Oklahoma Low‑importance

	Oklahoma portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

	Ringed salamander is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education assignment: Behavioral Ecology 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yunfeng Ge (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Qinan123, Anikavarsani, Thebullfrogwhisperer.

— Assignment last updated by Eurquhart02 (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

==Peer Review -- Overall very good structure, however I went ahead and unbolded all of the headings to make them more uniform with what a typical Wikipedia article looks like. For clarity reasons, I switched all scientific name usage throughout the article to conventional names in order to keep it consistent. I also changed the name of terms that could be confusing to some readers, for example, mtDNA to mitochondrial DNA, while it is more wordy it makes some points in the article much easier to understand for a general audience. Anikavarsani (talk) 13:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

==Peer Review -- I thought that the structure of the article was very good and that the information in the sections were detailed. I fixed some grammatical mistakes and added some clarifying sentences to words in the lead and descriptions because I thought that some of the words would be difficult or confusing for laymen readers. --Qinan123 (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

==Peer Review -- I was really impressed with how well written this article was and the level of clarity in the details. I made minor edits like clearing out things that were capitalized and editing commas as needed. The citations looked to be accurate and well placed so no further comments on that front. I noticed a few grammatical issues using parentheses or some sentences that were too long to include a parenthetical add on into and edited as needed. The cannibalism paragraph seemed to be missing sources so I found a source that went over much of that information and added it along with relevant information. Thebullfrogwhisperer (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]