User:Colleenlu/Schinia pulchripennis/Khash195 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I am reviewing the draft written by Colleen (Username: Colleenlu).


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Colleenlu/Schinia_pulchripennis?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 been updated to reflect the new content in the article body. The introductory sentence introduces the article's topic, which is the common flower moth, but the rest of the Lead doesn't describe the article's major sections. Since the Lead is missing information development, it would be helpful if the Lead briefly explained the development of the common flower moth from an egg to adulthood because in your article body, you have written about development. Overall, the Lead is clear, but more information could be added.

Content

The content that has been added is relevant to the common flower moth (Schinia pulchripennis). The original article has a short lead that very briefly introduces Schinia pulchripennis, but there are no other sections present besides external links. The student's addition of information about development is a substantial contribution because the original article has such little content. The information isn't very up-to-date since two of four sources are a book and journal articles that were written in 1965 and 1958, respectively. The other two sources are more current because they are journal articles from 2008 and 2013. The only content that appears to be missing, is a brief description of development in the Lead because one of the article's major sections is about development.

Tone and Balance

The content is neutral and unbiased. No viewpoints are over- or under-represented, and no content is written in a way to persuade the reader to favor some information over other information. The article could improve on the balance of the amount of writing in each section (Lead and Development). The Lead is relatively short while the section titled Development is relatively long. If a little more information was included in the Lead, then the amount of writing in each section would be more balanced.

Sources and References

All of the new content is backed up by reliable sources. However, the Lead requires sources that back up the moth's family, locations it inhabits, and its wingspan. The content accurately reflects what the cited sources say. The sources are thorough, but it would be helpful to include more content and sources in the Lead. Also, it would be helpful to include information and sources about the physical description of the moth. When I search Schinia pulchripennis on Google Scholar, I see that there aren't many journal articles about Schinia pulchripennis, but if possible, add more sources because you only have 4 references so far.

The sources aren't very current since two of four sources are from 1965 and 1958. The other two sources are more current because they are from 2008 and 2013. Even though the number of sources is limited and they're not all current, the sources are all reliable. Additionally, the links in the references work properly. However, two of the references say "Check date values", so the references may need to be slightly edited.

Organization

The content that has been added is well-written since it's clear and it provides enough detail to understand the moth's development without prior knowledge. I also like the organization of the article because it's easy to find information about the moth's development. However, the Lead would present the structure of the article better if it mentioned the article's subsequent section titled Development. Also, I noticed one misspelled word at the end of the Development section. You wrote "O. pupurascen" but the article that's cited spells it purpurascens.

Images and Media

No new images or media were added to the draft.

For New Articles Only

This is not a new Wikipedia article, but the content about development that has been added is a thorough contribution to the original article. While there are more than 3 sources, the article would benefit from having more sources if possible. Also, when you move your work to the actual Wikipedia page, make sure to create a section heading for Development. Lastly, this article links to other Wikipedia articles, which is helpful in finding more information about other topics.

Overall Impressions

Overall, I think the article provides thorough information about the development of Schinia pulchripennis over its lifetime. Thus the content and sources that have been added have improved the overall quality of the article. I like the clear explanations of the stages of development because it is a complicated process, yet it has been described in a very straightforward manner. It would be an improvement if the content about development was briefly mentioned in the Lead.