User:Henrymn1/Camponotus dumetorum/Mseelam Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Lead
The lead has been updated to reflect the content and it does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. However, I do think that the lead can be edited or revised to better describe the article's topic. Including a few brief sentences about what is going to be covered in the paper is going to be useful for the audience. In addition, it gives the audience a sense of what to expect. The lead does not include information that is not present in the article and is pretty concise. Although through a little revision I do believe the lead can be become a lot stronger and really captivate the audience about the species camponotus dumetorum.

Content
The main content covers subtopics such as anatomy, distribution, and ecological impacts. The content covered is really relevant to the audience since it describes more about Camonotus dumetorem and goes into more specifics about it. There is not content that is missing but there is content that could be additionally included. For example for the anatomy maying covering the minor to a greater extent could help the audience gain a greater sense of the anatomy of the species. In addition, more information regarding the distribution could be covered. This means that when for example when mentioning that "compromised their mutualistic relationship with other species" maybe giving or a few examples would enhance the overall article. Also, the article does not deal with one of the Wikipedia's equity gaps and it does not address topics that are related to historically underrepresented populations or topics. Overall, this is a great start more information can be covered in a greater extent and additional information can be added to enhance the overall article. Great start though!

Tone and Balance
The content added is neutral in nature. There is no bias in the writing by any means and there are no claims that appear to be heavily biased towards a particular position. There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented and the content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another. Overall the author does a great job with utilizing a neutral tone and not trying to persuade the audience in one way or another.

Sources and References
The sources are listed in the references section, however all the content does not seem to be backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. For example, the article includes "the average length of a worker minor is 6-9 mm" but does not include another source to back up this information. I think what would help would be going through the article sentence by sentence and determining whether the information is supported by adequate amount of sources. By doing this, you are able to ensure that all the information is supported by evidence and that is legit. Through this, in addition, the audience is able to trust the information presented in the article to a greater extent and it would allow individuals to not be confused about where certain details are drawn from. I do see a total of seven references that are listed and I do believe this is a great start! The sources are thorough in that they do reflect the available literature on the topi. The sources are not current however. By including more information from more current sources also helps ensure that the information is more up to date and relevant. There is one source that is utilized from the 2021 year but using and emphasizing more current sources could help keep the information up to date. The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors and they do not include historically marginalized individuals since this is not applicable. I ensured to link on a few links and do believe that they are working; they direct the audience directly to other relevant sources and provide the audience with more information if necessary.

Organization
The content is well written and it is concise, clear, and easier to read. The content does no have have any grammatical errors but does have format issues that could detract the audience's attention from paying attention to the content of the article. Although the information is broken down into sections, a lot of the information is not italicized when it is supposed to. For example, the species C. dumetorum through out the article was not italicized and should be; fixing these minor errors could greatly improve the quality of the article.

Images and Media
The article does not include any other images that enhance the understanding of the topic. Since no images were included there were no captions included either. I think adding several images to the article could greatly enhance the quality of the article. In addition, by laying them out in a more visually appealing way/ manner, it could help the audience vision and picture what the author is referring to. It helps enhance clarity and is an easy way to make your article more visually appealing.

For New Articles Only
The article does meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements since it is supported by several other reliable other sources independent of the subject. The list of sources is not that exhaustive and it does accurately reflect the available literature on the subject. The article does follow patterns of other similar articles but several changes can be made to make it stronger and more cohesive. The article links to other articles so it is more discoverable.

Overall Impressions
The article is more complete and does include a lot of the required and necessary elements. The strengths of the content include breaking it down into subsections, covering relevant information, and including appropriate references. The article content can be improved by adding more relevant sources and by including more pictures. Additionally, adding more content on the ecological impacts and anatomy section could help provide the audience with a greater understanding of the species. Overall great job Henry! I do firmly believe with the necessary changes your article will be well on its way to being very strong!