User:BellaW1102/Papilioninae/Passer1ne2001 Peer Review

General info
BellaW1102
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing User:BellaW1102/Papilioninae
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists) Papilioninae

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead - Added information was fitting for a general description at a glance.

Content - Added significant and good information about the morphology, ranges, and life cycles of the butterflies.

Tone and Balance - One balance note I thought about was that you might want to edit the note the original had about 27 occurring in North America? That stuck me as a bit of a random tidbit that doesn't hold much relevance about the larger species and is a bit Americentric.

Sources and Reference - All four sources I saw seemed very credible, and the ones that had links led to scientific journals. I was unsure whether you plan on bringing the original source the article had over, but it seemed credible as well. Only note is that source one and four are somewhat old, but that's somewhat expected for niche scientific topics and isn't that relevant if they're the most up to date sources of information.

Organization - I think my main critique would be in organization. Maybe it's just me but I think the Morphological Characteristics section could be better formatted for ease of reading, such as summarizing the information in a paragraph. However, that might just be my perception of it.

Images - N/A

Overall Impressions - Overall, I think you've added a substantial amount of good information to this article. While it could use some more fleshing out, I think you're on a good track to drastically improving an article that didn't have much in it. The ideas I had to maybe help improve it are mentioned in the Tone and Organization sections above, but I might also suggest adding some embedded wikipedia links to terms you use to better explain them or give further reference? It might better help illustrate what the morphological characteristics are, for example. Other than that, I think you've made good progress. I especially think the geographical range data you've added is valuable for a larger group of species like you are researching.