User:Katylady1007/Hercules beetle/MeganBodine 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? 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?
 * 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?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation:
The lead does include a general description that is clear and concise that describes what the article is about. The last sentence seems little long, I would break it up into two separate sentences. The introduction does not include a description of the articles major sections but it does "get your toes wet" for what you will be reading about.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant to the topic and up to date. I personally would include maps of their known habitats, maybe some pictures as well. I like the subspecies section as well, but I believe there is a way to link the subspecies wiki pages to your page for readers who are so inclined to explore more about the Hercules beetles. Also, the combat behavior section under life cycles should probably be included in the behavior section because it is a behavior they exhibit.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content is neutral and informative and there is no bias present. I would say that pictures would probably be a good addition for a visual aid. I see the notes saying to add more information in places where it seems more should be added, so I feel the writer is aware more needs to be added. There is no persuasion, the article is aimed towards informing the reader. The life cycle section could be laid out a little clearer. There is some grammatical errors that need to be revised/reworded with commas added, deleted and run-on sentences that need to be fixed.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The author has amazing sources and reflect the literature of the topic. I see notes to add more citations with more information so I see the author is planning to add even more citations in the near future. The sources are relatively current, but as I understand there is not a whole lot of information known about the beetle in the wild so her citations might be limited to the beetles that are kept as pets etc. The links of the citations work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content is well written, it could use some clarification here and there and a couple of words switched around for easier reading, but the information is concise and informative. There is grammatical errors present but overall well developed. The sections reflect the major points, but some could be combined as I had said earlier.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There is no images or media provided.

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall, I love the content you have added and I feel like I have a good understanding of this cool beetle. The information you have provided definitely makes the initial article more complete, my goodness you have a lot of grammatical errors you have to fix from the original authors page. The strengths is the elaboration in every single section and the intention to add even more information. The content does need some fixing in regards to grammar, pictures, and organization in the behaviors.. but overall it's a great addition to the existing article! :)