User:Kamur93/Andricus quercuscalifornicus/TheChurroGuy Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kamur93


 * 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

Lead
In comparison with the original article, there does not seem to be a lead section above the Table of Contents. As such, it does not include an introductory sentence, description of the article's major sections, nor additional information. The lead information in the original article appears to be lowered into the Article draft section. I would greatly recommend the addition of the lead as readers typically look at the top of the page in reading articles.

Content
It seems that the review article appears unfinished as the "Live oak(Quercus virginiana Mill.) as a host" section does not have any content below it. In comparing the content of the "Life Cycle" section of the original article and the "Life history of the oak gallwasps" section of the review article, the original article appears to be longer and contains more details on the life cycle of the organism. The two articles cover the same topic, so the actual content remains the same. This article does not relate to historically underrepresented populations or topics. It seems that the "Habitat" section of the original article does not have a corresponding section in the review article, but the review article contains more detailed descriptions of the organism's influence on its host in the review article's "Adaptive value of gall induction" section and "Life history of the oak gallwasps" section. The content added is relatively up-to-date with the most recent source originating from 2020, but the majority of the sources come from 1980s to 2000s.

Tone and Balance
The content added has a neutral tone with a scientific basis given that all of the information in it relates to the life cycle of the organism. In that sense, scientific viewpoints are overreepresented, and there is no discussion on how humans impact the organism or its habitat nor how it impacts human life. Instead, it gives context on how humans have developed theories on its evolutionary biology. It does not have any claims that appear heavily biased nor does it attempt to persuade the reader as it gives even evidence for different hypotheses.

Sources and References
All new content is backed up by a secondary source of information, but some sources are locked behind a paywall as in the first reference. While the text that is cited can be seen in the abstract, the evidence behind their findings remain behind a paywall. In the sources that can be viewed, they appear to accurately reflect the cited information. The sources do range on a continuous time spectrum from the 1980s to 2020, indicating a diverse authorship in terms of chronology, but the vast majority of the authors originate from U.S. and European institutions. The links do indeed work, and these sources are largely peer-reviewed articles, so they appear legitimate.

Organization
The content added is well-written with a scholarly tone free of obvious grammatical and spelling errors. The content is organized, but it could be improved with the addition of the lead section as an introduction and information added to the "Live oak(Quercus virginiana Mill.) as a host" section. It would flow better to me if the life history was presented first as context for the role the organism plays in its ecological niche in following sections.

Images and Media
There are not images or media in the review article.

Overall impressions
The review article is well-written with the information it has, and it is more detailed in the potential evolutionary hypotheses that could have produced the organism in its present state. However, it contains details on the ecological niche without the context of what the organism is, how it appears, and where is it located. Adding that information from the original article to the review article would improve the overall quality describing the organism.