User:Colleenlu/Forelius pruinosus/Victotp1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I am reviewing Isaac Cinco's work.

Username: Icinco


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Icinco/New_sandbox?fbclid=IwAR2Zld_V48-GJ05iXZNM86BD8poqTMnaqIF1eLFf4gcqe2d2NlnaKAbY0sA
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Forelius pruinosus

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
Yes, Isaac has updated the lead to reflect the contributions he made to the Wikipedia article. The Lead starts with an introductory sentence that is concise and clearly states that this article is about the species Forelius pruinosus. The Lead does include brief descriptions of the major sections of this article. The Lead has great relevance to the rest of the major sections in the article and there is not any information in the Lead that is not presented later on in the article. The Lead is of appropriate length and is very concise, it is not overly detailed.

Content
Yes, Isaac's contributions are relevant to the species Forelius pruinosus. Additionally, the content is up to date. I thought that all the content added did belong and noticed that Isaac contributed to the organization in the Distribution section of the Wikipedia article which made it more reader friendly and more detailed. I thought that it was great that Isaac built off of some of the frame work that already existed in this Wikipedia article and made a very positive contribution to the article. This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and it does not address topics that are related to underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance
The contributions that Isaac added are neutral and presented in a factual manner. I did not see any claims that appeared to be heavily biased toward a particular position. I thought that Isaac did a great job of representing viewpoints equally. I did not feel persuaded in favor of any position while reading Isaac's contributions and do not think that the contributions he made to this Wikipedia article are intended to persuade the reader to do so.

Sources and References
Isaac's contributions are well supported by reliable sources of information. Of the sources that Isaac referenced, they are accurately represented in his Wikipedia contributions to this article. The sources that Isaac chose seem to be thorough and a good representation of the literature that is available on this species. The sources are current for the most part. I did see a source from 1965, but the remainder of the sources are from the 2000s (2003-2014). I am not sure as to whether these sources include historically marginalized individuals, but it does seem that the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors who are all well established in the field. Isaac did not include any news coverage or random websites. All the sources that he included were appropriate sources that are peer-reviewed and reliable. The sources that Isaac chose are all consistent with sources that should be used in a Wikipedia contribution. All the links that I tried for the references worked and I was able to view the references on my computer.

Organization
Yes, the content that is added is very well-written and appropriate for Wikipedia. Isaac's contributions were very concise and clear. I did not have trouble reading any of Isaac's contributions and also found his contributions easy to understand and enjoyable to read.

I read through Isaac's contributions a couple times through and was not able to find any grammatical or spelling errors.

The content added is well-organized. Even within each major section, there is great organization, especially in the Distribution section. I would say that the contributions Isaac made definitely reflect major points related to this species.

Images and Media
The one image that is included in this article does enhance my understanding of the topic because I have a clearer understanding of what the worker ant of this species looks like. The image is well captioned and adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. I also think that this image is laid out in a visually appealing way. If my understanding is correct of the version history, it seems that this image was added before Isaac started adding his contributions.

Overall Impressions
The contribution that Isaac made to this article definitely improved the overall quality of the article. I appreciated how Isaac really made an effort to contribute to whatever was already existing about this species on the Wikipedia article.

The strengths of this contribution are the organization and well supported information that is presented. I am really impressed with all the sources that Isaac used to support his contributions. I was also impressed by the organization of the Distribution section. Based off of the view history, it was evident that Isaac made very positive adjustments to this section to make it a better experience for viewers of this Wikipedia page.

This article can be improved by adding more images and media. If my interpretation of the view history is correct, it seems that the one image on this article was already present initially. Some image ideas I have are including some images related to the Behavior section (possibly a picture of what a colony of this species would look like, what linking nests via trails looks like, possibly the ants scavenging on dead vertebrate, all would be helpful in visualizing the behavior of this species).

Secondly, in the distribution section, some images can be added of the habitats this species is usually found in (desert regions, grasslands).

All in all, I am very impressed with Isaac's contribution. It is evident to me that he spent a lot of time looking at the literature to choose the most well-suited sources for his Wikipedia contribution. Great job, Isaac!