User:Colleenlu/Forelius pruinosus/Colleenlu Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Icinco


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Icinco/New sandbox
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Forelius pruinosus

Lead
My peer did not modify the Lead from the original Wikipedia article. The original Lead had concise introductory information about Forelius pruinosus. More specifically, it included the common name of the insect as well as its genus. However, the Lead did not contain brief descriptions of the article's major sections (ex. "Behavior" and Distribution." I would suggest Isaac to include these in the second paragraph of the lead. Furthermore, the Lead presented appropriate information in a concise way.

Content
Isaac did add relevant information to the Wikipedia article, including information about the insects' behavior and distribution. The content contained mostly up-to-date information with majority of the references coming from the 2000s. I understand that it is difficult to find research articles from the last 10 years about the topic as the insect has not been extensively researched. Therefore, I believe these sources are sufficient. Under the "Behavior" section, I would suggest making the statement "They forage for insects and..." into another paragraph, because it does not relate to the previous statement about reproduction. In addition, I would move the statement "In the Gulf Coast..." to the "Distribution" section because this talks about where the insects nest, which is mentioned in the latter section. Isaac can then elaborate on the insect's reproduction (paragraph 1) and diet (paragraph 2) under the "Behavior section" if he is able to find information.

Tone and Balance
The tone of the draft was neutral, and did not contain any heavily biased information. Isaac did an excellent job of talking his insect without unnecessarily comparing it to other insects. The draft also did not try to persuade the reader to favor an idea.

Sources and References
The new content were appropriately supported by reliable sources of information. More specifically, the sources included review journal articles and had thorough information that was relevant to the present topic. The sources included journal articles that were published from the 1960s to the 2000s. As mentioned before, although these articles were not within the past ten years, the insect is underdeveloped within the research field. Therefore these sources are sufficient. In addition, the sources were written by different authors.The links for the references also worked.

Organization
The content added was clear and easy to read. It was useful that Isaac added subheadings (ex. "United States" and "Latin America" under "Distribution." This allowed the body of the Wikipedia article to be very organized. There were a few grammatical errors, which I have listed below:


 * "Reproductive alates during nuptial flight were recorded from May to August, and colonies of this species are polygyne, which means they have multiple queens, but colonies are usually small to moderately large in size" I would suggest splitting this into two sentences.


 * "Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri"
 * "...desert regions, grasslands, and various sorts of woodland"
 * "Fields, meadows, and pastures"
 * "These ants thrive in hot weather and dry conditions, and they are mostly active when it is hot, and will not forage during the night possibly because of cooler temperatures." I would suggest splitting this into two sentences.

Images and Media
The original Wikipedia contained a photo of F. pruinosus. This photo was very clear and had a measurement bar on the corner so that the reader can gauge how big the insect is. Additionally, since the photo contained a solid background, it was easy to identify the features of the insect. The image was also well captioned because it specifies that the picture was of an F. pruinosus worker. I believe an additional image of what a queen looks like would be helpful as this is mentioned under "Behavior."

Overall Impressions
Overall, Isaac did an exceptional job for his added portions of the Wikipedia article. The article has become more complete because Isaac elaborated on the "Distribution" section. He was also very organized by adding sub-headings to the "Distribution" section. This made the Wikipedia article relatively easy to read. Furthermore, it was helpful that he linked terms to other Wikipedia articles. If it is possible to find more research articles, Isaac can add more information about the reproduction and diet of the insect. There were also a few grammatical errors from the original article (listed above), however after these errors are fixed, the draft would be good to publish. Great work!