User:Colleenlu/Schinia pulchripennis/Mvtrinh Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

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 hasn't been altered from the original article. I think it would be great if the lead serves as a general overview of the entire article. For example, as it is right now, the lead talks about the geographic distribution of the species, description, and feeding of Schinia pulchripennis, so having these topics elaborated more in the article body would be great! It's also pretty short right now and kind of feels like a list of facts rather than a general overview of the Wikipedia article.

Content

A development section was added to the article. It looks like some of the information comes from sources that are from the late 1900s, so the information may not be up to date, although this might be due to difficulty finding journal articles that have researched Schinia pulchripennis. The lead mentions some information that is not present in the body of the article, so some information about the geographic distribution and a general description of Schinia pulchripennis may be missing.

Tone and Balance

The development section was added is written in a neutral and unbiased tone. As it includes information from 4 different sources from different authors, viewpoints seem to be equally represented as not 1 source is heavily relied upon.

Sources and References

All information in the development section is backed up by at least 1 journal article, and just from an overview of the sources, it seems like the information reflects the content in the sources well. Some of the sources date back to the late 1900s, so they may not be current. The sources seem to be written by a diverse spectrum of authors, with primary authors from different universities around the world, Canada to Turkey and Korea. As all sources are from peer-reviewed journal articles, there might not be better sources.

Organization

The content is easy to read without any grammatical or spelling errors. As it is now, the new content in the development section is written as just a single paragraph. Some other articles on insect species divide their development section into different life stages (from egg to larvae to pupae to adult), so this might be something you can also do to break down the paragraph into sections.

Images and Media

No images added, although the original article does have an image.

Overall impressions

The added content definitely makes the original article more complete as the development section a good summary of the life cycle of this species. I think the lead can be improved as it's not really acting as a general overview right now, and I wish there was more information about what Schinia pulchripennis looks like, as there's not really any information on things like the color of it's wings, the wing shape, what the larvae / pupae look like, etc.