User:Kamur93/Andricus quercuscalifornicus/Khash195 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I'm reviewing Karina's article (Username: Kamur93). However, her name was listed as Kate in the email with the assignments.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kamur93/Andricus_quercuscalifornicus?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Andricus quercuscalifornicus

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.)

Lead

I don't see a Lead section in the Sandbox draft. Make sure to update the Lead with brief descriptions that reflect the article's sections.

Content

The content that has been added is very relevant and thorough. The majority of the articles are from 2006 onward, but a few sources are from earlier (1971, 1987, 1995). Overall, the information that has been added is up-to-date. No content appears to be missing either. The content added is very detailed and informative.

Tone and Balance

The writing is very objective, and the content that has been added is neutral and unbiased. Therefore, the writing does not persuade the reader to favor certain information over other information. The different sections of the article are well-balanced in regards to the amount of information added.

Sources and References

All of the new content is backed up by a reliable source, such as journal articles and published books. The content also accurately reflects the information in the sources that have been cited. The sources are thorough and contain many recent findings beyond what was covered in the original article. The sources are mostly current since most are from 2006 onward, but three sources are from earlier (1971, 1987, 1995). Alternative sources aren't necessary because the sources are all reliable. Also, the links in the references work properly.

Organization

The new content is very well-written because of its thoroughness. Despite the level of detail, it is very easy to follow the writing and comprehend everything. The article is broken down into sections that reflect major topics about the insect (Life history of the oak gallwasps, Adaptive value of gall induction, and A. quercuscalifornicus insect community), and these sections are well-distinguished from the sections in the original article (Description, Habitat, and Life Cycle). I like how these new sections were incorporated into the original article. The topics flow well together. I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors either. The only thing I could find that may need to be corrected is the extra space between a period and a citation in a bracket. Citations 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 10 all have the extra space.

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 new content is a major contribution to the original article. The writing is very thorough, informative, and clear with many reliable sources. The Sandbox draft well-organized, and the new content that has been added to the actual Wikipedia draft is also positioned in good locations within the article. Lastly, the article has terms that are linked to other Wikipedia articles in order to find further information.

Overall Impressions

Overall, the article is very well-written. The writing is clear and flows well with the content within the original article. The article's sections have also been organized well, so navigation between the sections is easier. Thus, the article is high quality due to its clear writing, thorough content, and organization. I like how well the new content has been incorporated with the original content. It would be an improvement if content could be added to the Lead to briefly describe the subsequent sections of the article.