User:Ard1174/Northern flicker/Allisonk444 Peer Review

General info
Ard1174
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Northern Flicker Sandbox:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Northern Flicker:

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead- For this section I like how you cut out the extremely long sentence on all the different names for the Northern Flicker. The original article was going really in depth into that while it had little to no relevance to the content. However, I suggest keeping the beginning of the sentence where it says it has over 100 common names. Only because a reader could be trying to find information about this bird but, they call it by a different name and would believe they are on the wrong Wikipedia article. Also with your lead rewrite make sure you include words that need to be bolded and/or italicized (I'm mainly talking about the species name colaptes auratus). Finally, I would just suggest rereading over this section/putting it through Grammarly as there are a variety of grammar issues within the paragraph. All in all, your lead paragraph did a much better job then the original article at summarizing the actual information that's in the article rather then the random facts found in the original lead.

Content- You added a lot of good information to the reproduction section! I thought it was interesting and relevant towards the article since the original spoke about their call but did not discuss what evolutionary advantages it proposed to them. With your content I would suggest trying to find sources that may be considered more reliable, so avoiding the .com website and searching through some peer reviewed scientific journals. Especially where you talked about the behaviors of the bird, those definitely should have been studied by a scientist to be considered factual enough to put on Wikipedia.

Tone and Balance- You do a good job at establishing a neutral tone!

Sources and References- Like I said before in the content section try to find some information from peer reviewed journals/scientific articles versus just .org and .com sources. You do do a good job at supporting all the claims you make with a citation.

Organization- I would suggest breaking up the addition you made in the reproduction section into multiple paragraphs. Also I think you accidentally had the section of "the entrance hole..." copied twice over in your sandbox. I did like how you structured your information. With your content in general I would run it through Grammarly and just go back through and carefully reread. There are a decent amount of grammatical issues/misspellings of words.

Images and Media- I liked the picture you included of the bird's colorful underbelly it aided in the understanding of the topic!

Overall- I liked the new lead you included and the additional information in the reproduction section. All of your content is relevant. I would suggest mainly focusing on better organization of your work, more reliable sources, and grammatical issues.