User:ARTR2222/Astragalus microcymbus/AndreaNwilliams Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

ARTR222


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Astragalus microcymbus I'm not sure if there is a separate draft yet. When I looked at the Sandbox Draft, nothing came up so I just put the article link instead and will review the current article.


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Astragalus microcymbus

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Based on the page history, I don't think the student has added anything to the page and the draft didn't show anything either. This review will be of the current page Astragalus microcymbus.

Lead

The lead section bold and italicizes the scientific name of the species, but I think having the common name skiff milkvetch as the title of the page might be easier for viewers to find the page. The first two sentences of the lead are concise, but the next few sentences could probably be added to sub-sections of the article. The information presented in the current article also seems very scattered. There isn't any organization and flow to the information being shared in the current article. I think adding separate sub-headings to compile the information by category would help the organization of this article.

Content

There needs to be a lot more content added to the article. There is only one short lead paragraph and a species box. The species box is a great addition, showing a photo, classification, and status of the species. From the article history, no content has been added since 2019 so I'm not sure if new sources are available regarding the species. The tone of the content seems neutral, no persuasive wording or viewpoints. The content is informative, it just needs to be divided into some sections as well as needs more content on the species history, range, threats, etc.

Sources

The three sources in the reference section are all cited throughout the lead section. The information regarding the flower colors and petals I couldn't find in the source it cited. These sources should therefore be double-checked for accuracy, they could've been updated since this information was put in the article. The second link also didn't work so this needs to be changed. All of the sources are web pages, having a more diverse set of sources would be ideal.