User:Colleenlu/Schinia pulchripennis/Cadonsam Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I am reviewing Colleen's article on Schinia pulchripennis.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Colleenlu/Schinia_pulchripennis?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Schinia pulchripennis

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: The lead has not yet been updated and remains the same as the original article. In the article, the lead briefly introduces Schinia pulchripennis by stating where they are found, the wingspan, and what they feed on. The sentences in the lead are choppy and do not provide very much information, especially since none of the sentences are supported by references. This can be revised by adding references to each sentence and rewriting them thoroughly to provide more flow.

Content: The added content is both relevant and up-to-date. No information seems to be missing in the "development" subtopic since it was very thorough from start to finish. Everything mentioned in the paragraph belonged to the topic.

Tone and balance: The content appears neutral and I did not detect any sense of bias towards a particular position. A neutral point of view was maintained throughout the entire article.

Sources and references: Four references were used and all of them were reliable sources. Each of the provided articles were published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, which confirms its validity. However, at least one additional reference could also be used if possible. References to back up information from the lead may also be necessary.

Organization: The organization of the article so far makes sense. I am able to follow the article clearly through the subheadings. The "development" subtopic was organized in a single paragraph but can be broken down into shorter ones if possible. If there is enough information, this paragraph can also be broken down into the subtopics "mating" and "development." This may make for an easier read so others can navigate the information more specifically.

Images and media: Only one image from the original article is displayed so far. This image in particular is also blurry. This can be revised by including more high-quality and updated images to replace the old one. Brief captions under the images would also be very helpful.

Overall impressions: Overall, this article is sufficient in providing more information about Schinia pulchripennis. This article can be further revised by adding images, breaking down the content into smaller paragraphs if possible, and adding references to the lead section. Otherwise, it is an informative and well-written article so far.