User:Kaywhyy/Utricularia intermedia/AJEA2000 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kaywhyy


 * Link to draft you're reviewing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaywhyy/Utricularia_intermedia?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Utricularia intermedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

Your article is about Utricularia intermedia, a small, carnivorous plant that belongs to one of the three genera in the family Lentibulariaceae, that’s cool! Your lead includes an introductory sentence that clearly describes the article's topic and a brief description of the article's major sections. It is concise and provides relevant information about the plant. However, the brief description of the major sections in the lead could be expanded upon to give readers a better understanding of the article's content.

Content:

The content you added is relevant to the topic, and the article is definitely more up-to-date now! The article covers different aspects of the plant, such as its description, stems, leaves, and flowers. The content added deals with the plant's ecology, habitat, and morphology. However, I feel that there are a few areas where more information could be added to provide a more comprehensive understanding of Utricularia intermedia. For example, while the article briefly touches on the plant's distribution, more information on its range and specific habitats where it is commonly found would be helpful. Additionally, while the article notes that U. intermedia is part of the Lentibulariaceae family, more information on the family itself could be added to give readers a better understanding of the context in which this species exists (could be very brief, I noticed you linked the family’s name to another Wikipedia article so that does the job for you!).

Tone and Balance:

You’ve done a great job at keeping the content you added neutral, there are no claims that appear biased towards a particular position. The entire article represents the information accurately, and there is no attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another. However, I believe the article could benefit from including more viewpoints or perspectives, such as the cultural significance of the plant or its role in the ecosystem. Your article also seems to mainly focus on the physical characteristics and carnivorous aspects of the plant, but it doesn’t give equal attention to its other characteristics, (ie. in the lead you mention it’s perennial, meaning it could possibly live up to more than 2 years and has little to no woody growth. You could try to integrate a little about how that applies to Utricularia intermedia. Maybe have a section discuss its perennial characteristics?). Doing that will ensure you’re providing a particularly balanced view of the species.

Sources and References:

The new content you’ve adding is backed up by reliable secondary sources of information! The sources are thorough and reflect available literature on your topic of Utricularia intermedia. However, the article could be improved by adding more current sources, there may be a better source available to replace that of Taylor, P published in 1989. I haven’t personally looked into it therefore I’m not sure if there is something more recent for the content in that series, so it’s up to your judgement!

Organization:

The content added is well-written, clear, and easy to read. The article is well-organized and broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic. There are, however, a few areas where I think the writing could be improved. For example, the description of the leaves could benefit from more concise and clear language. Additionally, there are a few very minor grammatical and spelling errors that need to be corrected. Here are the ones I was able to notice:

·      "geneses" should be "genera".

·      "carnivorous plantand" should be "carnivorous plant and".

·      "semi-terriestrial" should be "semi-terrestrial".

·      "free floating" should be "free-floating".

·      "blocking the throat of the tube" should be "block the throat of the tube".

·      "suboblate" should be "sub-oblate".

·      "pray" should be "prey".

Overall impressions:

I love what you’ve done with your article! You have clearly chosen a topic that needed the expansion you've done. The content you added has improved the overall quality of the article, making it a lot more informative than what it had been for the duration of 2008-2023. The article's strengths include its clear and concise writing, accurate information, and relevant sources. The article could be improved by including more information on the plant's reproductive biology, distribution, and any other relevant information you may deem necessary!