User:Cadonsam/Argia vivida/Henrymn1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Cadonsam (Sam)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cadonsam/Argia_vivida?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Argia vivida

Lead

 * The lead has not been updated yet to reflect the content added, however the lead in the draft does include an introductory sentence that clearly defines what the topic is and what the article will include. It provides general information about the topic, yet doesn't include a preamble that briefly discusses the major topics (appearance, mating, and thermoregulation) that appear later on in the article. While the lead is concise, it also mentions its distribution (which is not further elaborated).

Content

 * The content added is relevant and from recent sources, and is therefore up to date. While there is not content that doesn't belong, I would like to see a bit more information regarding the distribution (given how it was brought up in the lead). Because the majority of the lead was derived from the main article, a suggestion I would make is perhaps moving the specific information regarding the distribution of the species to a new section rather than the lead. Furthermore, another sentence or two could expand on the the section regarding thermoregulation (due to the heavy emphasis one of the secondary sources places on this topic).
 * This article does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance

 * The tone is very objective, and no apparent biases towards any positions is detected. No viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented, and the article does not encourage the reader to take up any particular stances.

Sources and References

 * The information provided in the article body is supported by secondary sources, however additions to the distribution of the species in the lead require citations. The current information in the article reflects what the cited sources say, and the sources are both current and are written by different experts in different fields. Though two of the sources are from the same author, this will not be a prevalent issue upon addition of more sources. Sources utilized are reliable and current.

Organization

 * Overall, the article is well written and easy to follow. Syntactical structure allows the article to flow effortlessly, and a refined usage of shorter sentences and more complex sentences allows the reader to focus on the information rather than how it was presented.
 * No grammatical or spelling errors were detected.
 * The content is well organized -- the sections reflect the major points of the sources on the topic, and all information from the respective sections were relevant to the sections.

Overall Impressions

 * Yes, the content added overall has improved the quality of the article. Not only does it expand on current topics that are briefly mentioned in the article, it also introduces novel, intriguing details about the species that was not previously available. The content that has been added is excellent thus far, my primary suggestion would be to add more sources for greater diversity and to expand more on the "thermoregulation" section.