User:Katylady1007/Hercules beetle/Lindsey.Goldsby Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)Katylady1007
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Katylady1007/Hercules beetle

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I am not sure what was added by my peer, but I do not think the lead section really summarizes everything that is in the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Not really. I feel like the statement about other species could be a bit further down. It isn't the most important thing and doesn't say much about the topic as a whole.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is not detailed enough.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? I cannot really tell what is new, but everything present seems relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Most of the sources are recent, so it probably is. But, once again I cannot really tell what was added.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Maybe a section about the conservation status could be added.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Everything looks neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I am not very familiar with this beetle or the available literature, but there does seem to be a decent amount of sources cited.
 * Are the sources current? Most of them are.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? None of the sources have links.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I think it is okay.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I think a few areas could be improved.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? For the most part, yes. But, I think the section about male combat behavior could be moved the the behavior section.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I tried to look up a previous version of this article and could not find what was added, so I am not sure. But, the article is looking fine so I'm sure the added content was okay and improved the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The article is coming together and making sense, so the new content must be cohesive which is a strength.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think more content could definitely be added to further improve the article. Also, I had noticed that Wikipedia posts guides for how they would like an article about a species to look. I think that this article could be updated to follow those guidelines which would improve consistency across articles.