User:Buginarug11/Tacca Chantrieri/Astrahiraeth Peer Review

General info
Buginarug11
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Buginarug11/Tacca_Chantrieri?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Tacca chantrieri

Evaluate the drafted changes
Overall, the draft presented by Buginarug11 was very well done. The lead sentence is concise and clearly describes the topic at hand. There was a minor update made by the editor to add the colloquial name for Tacca chantrieri, what where that name came from. The lead is very short though, so one suggestion I would make for improvement on that would be to create a more robust lead - that summarizes the main points covered in the content section - once the content section has been finalized. However, given the current rating of the article (stub), the lead presented in their sandbox is more than adequate for this draft.

The content presented in the draft is all relevant, concise, clear and easy to read. The readability is enhanced by the accurate content headers. This allowed me to skim to find specific ideas throughout the draft. It also displayed good grammatical structure and had no obvious spelling or grammatical issues. Furthermore, I was able to connect all of the statements made in the content section directly to portions of the peer-reviewed journals and books cited in the references section. Buginarug11 also included new discussions about the medicinal properties/uses of Tacca chantrieri, as well as the cultivation and pollination processes of the plant. They also expanded upon the description of Tacca chantrieri, with discussions of the pollination of it and the phenomenon of flies getting stuck in it. One area of the content portion that could use expansion is the cultivation section - as it is only one sentence currently. However, when I looked at their bibliography, it seemed like they had more sources with information discussing cultivation that have not been included yet. Overall, the details included in the content section were well-written and used a neutral tone throughout, and aside from expansion on the cultivation section, there are no other points of expansion I would recommend.

The sources cited appear to be reliable, as they are all parts from peer-reviewed journals and books. The one drawback to the sources cited is that they are not coming from a variety of authors. Although the literature cited is from a variety of time periods (ranging from the 1970s - 2020s), the same researcher names are appearing over and over again. Based on the region Tacca chantrieri is found in, this could be a result of most research papers being written by local experts. But if there are more studies done by other researchers, it would be beneficial to the article's reliability of they were included in the content.

Overall, the content presented by Buginarug11 is very thorough, accurate to the source material, and well written. Their writing style is neutral and professional and there are no major errors in the information they're providing in the sandbox. Although they did not present any additional images or media in their sandbox draft, I believe that their draft is convincing and an excellent starting point revising and adding to the information presented in their article.