User:Jkemp7/Chloroperlidae/R.Williamson3 Peer Review

Peer Review: Chloroperlidae

Lead

''Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?''

It would be great to include a lead section before the “Description/Habitat” header.

From the existing Wikipedia page:"“The Chloroperlidae are a family of stoneflies, commonly known as green stoneflies, with more than 180 species in 15 genera. They appear green to yellow in color.”"This could be a good summary of what critter you are writing your article on. It tells you what family it belongs to and indicates that there are numerous species. You could then build off of this to include the broad topics that will be covered in the rest of your article – description/habitat, distribution, food, lifecycle.

As someone who had no idea what Chloroperlidea are (as will most wiki users viewing this page), I was a little confused jumping right into the nymph stage and their characteristics.

It may also be helpful to add/build off the “infobox” from the original Wikipedia page. Perhaps a section on region/distribution, lifespan etc. (things also discussed in your article).

Content

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Great information in the body of the article! Even from this initial draft, I learned a lot about Chloroperlidae. This is exactly the kind of overview I would want if I was initially researching an organism on Wikipedia – distribution, food, and life cycle have concise and detailed information. Nice work putting this page together and it provides a lot more information than the existing page.

This article might also have some good information and other references that they cite: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/iroh.200310726

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

It might be nice to include a heading/section for what Chloroperlidae do in their ecosystems/for the environment, especially aquatic ecosystems.


 * For example, I think stoneflies are being used in studies as indicators for water quality. Check out: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0269749189902236
 * From your article - "ROLE IN FOOD CHAIN:...” could be an interesting topic to expand on.

Including a section for images (or throughout the article) might be helpful too, especially since there are so many species! This could include images for the different life stages as well.

Tone and Balance

Is the content added neutral?

Great overall tone in your article. All of the sections have an informative tone which fits Wikipedia’s guidelines. I do not sense any bias, either personal or by the information presented from your sources.

Sources and References

Sources and citations within the article are accurately linked and cited. They seem to all be recent sources and are from reliable sites.

Most of the sources are government or university provided websites. I would work on finding more peer-reviewed sources, even if it just backs up a point already cited. I’ve noticed in Wikipedia that there are often multiple citations at the end of each sentence. It’s difficult when there isn’t a lot of content out there, but it enhances the credibility of your article. I suggest going back to your sources and taking a look at the articles they cite.


 * Looking for more sources from a variety of authors will also address the issues of equity, diversity and inclusion in the article. Official websites are credible but only show one perspective, where scientific journals may be better and are often from primary studies.

This is a link to ScienceDirect that contain Chloroperlidae topics: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/chloroperlidae

I would be careful in the “Food?...” sub-section of relying on a single source and only using bullet lists. It appears that this section is just direct quotes that list points in the same way as the website does in the linked source.

In your final version, make sure all of the citations are properly formatted. In the “Life cycle” section, references are cited inside the sentence whereas the rest of the article has them outside.

Organization

''Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?''

Content is split up into appropriate sections and it reads well from top to bottom – I wouldn’t have guessed this was a group assignment! Well done.

I would suggest working on headings and subheadings. I found that looking at other Wikipedia pages for topics related to mine was very helpful for this. For example, check out Mayfly and Dragonfly. Here are some ideas...

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * “Description/Habitat” could be broken down with a separate main heading for the paragraph you talk about world distribution. I would maybe even put this right after your lead section.
 * “How they look like” could be reworded as “General Description”. I would also have sub-headings to differentiate Nymphs from Adults (See Mayfly Wikipedia).
 * “Food?...” could be reworded and possibly reformatted too for the different life stages. Maybe using a combination of text and direct quotes.

Overall, grammar and spelling are well done. It clearly helps to have three sets of eyes before handing in this draft!

Images and Media

This article does not have images yet.

Overall impressions

This article greatly improves the existing/original page on Chloroperlidae. I learned about the different life stages and how that determines their habitat and consumption of resources. With a little formatting and media, I think it’ll be a great Wikipedia page.

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)

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.)