User:Christopher.horacek/Dynastes grantii/AsteforiiAlbicans Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Christopher.horacek


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Christopher.horacek/Dynastes grantii


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Dynastes grantii

Evaluate the drafted changes
Out of all the sections, I think that the current lead section needs the most work. The other sections are definitely improvements to the current article, providing a well-rounded overview of current knowledge of D. grantii for public use. Reflecting this, I will review the Lead last.

Content

The vast majority of your work is very relevant, and it all concisely communicates the important information regarding the species. I think the most important change that needs to be made here are some of the implications of the information-- i.e., your article covers that the beetle eats the sap of trees by damaging the cambium layer on branches. This undoubtably damages the tree, and so it may be important to note the damage/conservation aspects of this beetle.

Also, on feeding, the article you cited (reference 1) misspells the name of the species ("granti") and may be unreliable for information about the species--though I can't be 100% sure. It was written in 1988, after all.

Tone and Balance

I'd say the content is neutral throughout--there aren't many places where there could be bias (though that is a bit of a double-edged sword, since there's not much for species significance either). The sections "Habitat and Distribution" and "Feeding habits" could probably be combined or expanded, as they feel a bit short to have their own headers. Overall, the article feels very factual and grounded with references--adding anything concerning conservation or significance would warrant multiple references and there would be some challenge to keeping them neutral, but I do think it would improve the article in terms of thoroughness.

Sources and References

You have a good spread of authors--I don't see any common names, which can happen with niche subjects. I didn't see any broken links, which is also pretty common.

A lot of the article relies heavily on two articles (references 1 and 2), which may be a problem if one of them was unreliable, or had misinterpreted information. I wholly understand that there probably aren't many journal articles on the species, but it may be a good idea to check a handful of statements against other references to "distribute the weight" of many of the claims so you aren't drawing too heavily from a single group of authors.

As I mentioned earlier, the first article may not be ideal for this species, besides the misspelling of the species name. It is concerned with the genus as a whole, and so it's easy for the authors to conflate information about one species with another--I've seen it happen a lot when it comes to entomology, so it might be good to double check the statements with something else, such as another webpage or journal article.

Reference 1 and 5 are the same as one another.

The date formats on some of the references are incorrect--they should just be years, not something like "2010-2"--wikipedia gets antsy when it doesn't fit, and it would look weird when you upload it to Wikipedia at the end.

Organization

The information is very well organized, with no overlap between topics. It is concise overall, and fits together nicely.

Images and Media

You have a nice spread of media throughout--I might add a photo of the damage to the trees as well, but the article is very good without. This draft feels incomplete without the sidebar present on the main page >

so I would definitely keep that when you do go to upload your draft. The comparison between this species and the closely related beetle is a really good touch, though it may need a caption and border on it, just for quick and easy viewing. On the other hand, the display of two images next to one another was pretty clever, so it may be safer to leave them be.

 Lead section 

This is the bit that needs the most work in my opinion. The lead section is supposed to operate as a summary of the information you'll go over in the article, so that someone can just look at the lead section and have everything they need to know without looking at the other sections. However, it also needs to just be a summary, and the other sections are where you should go into more detail. To improve this, I really just think you need to mention a few more basic pieces of information, something like "it inhabits... and feeds off of tree sap by boring into..." and "this species is known for..." etc.

Overall impressions
A good article, especially compared to the original. I'm not sure how significant the subject matter is (not an entomology student), but you've done a good job of giving the overview. The topic by topic approach to describing the species was a good choice over the paragraph of info in the original.

I think the best way to improve this is to flesh out some of the content with supplemental information (that wouldn't fit into the lead section), additional sources, and a review of some of the references themselves.

AsteforiiAlbicans (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)