User:Bmiddour/Mespilia globulus/Chef Long Johns Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?  Bmiddour
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bmiddour/Mespilia_globulus?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * doesn't exist
 * doesn't exist

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.)

Lead

 * 1) Includes article info that wasn't in the original. Since it didn't exist
 * 2) Topic sentence bit of extra information with the taxonomic relations, but fine overall.
 * 3) some of the info that was in the lead is expanded upon, but others have a short description in the lead but could be expanded, an example of that would be the environments.
 * 4) I think the level of detail in the lead is fine overall. Maybe have some more sources.

Content

 * 1) content is relevant to the topic and up to date.
 * 2) I think you can expand upon the ecology of the organism, with  the habitats and the feeding patterns of the organism.

Tone and Balance

 * 1) Content is neutral and up to date.
 * 2) no real positions or viewpoints to overrepresent.

Organization

 * 1) content was easy to read. and well written.
 * 2) No grammar or spelling errors.
 * 3) Content is broken down well, could add a few more sections though.

images
no images

Overall impressions
Good start, the article was very informative. Overall you need more info and a lot more sources. The sources you did have were nice, maybe include an image if you can. Fix the wording in the second section and add more info throughout and you should be good.