User:Keh18022/Bee hummingbird/CooperOfford Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Keh18022


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Keh18022/Bee hummingbird - Wikipedia


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Bee hummingbird - Wikipedia

Lead:

 * The lead is definitely concise. The student I am editing did not make any additions to it yet.
 * There is an introductory sentence to introduce the article topic.
 * Everything that is in the lead is talked about in the article which is good, but there are no descriptions briefly describing the main sections of the article. This should probably be added to the lead.

Content:

 * The content added is relative to the topic, which is good.
 * All of the content looks to be up to date, within the last 20 years or so, which is good.
 * I don't think this article deals with any equity gaps.
 * I would just say that more information should be added over time on behavior and physiology maybe. The article seems short, but what it has is relevant and informative.

Tone:

 * There are no claims which seem biased, which is good. Looks to be neutral.
 * It does not look like anything is over or underrepresented and there is no persuasion happening, which is good.

Sources:

 * The sources look to be current and thorough. All of the information comes from various journals of ornithology which look to be reputable.
 * The links work, but they only take me to the journal, not the paper itself. I'm not sure if this can be changed or if this is how Wiki does it.

Organization:

 * The content added is concise, clear, and well written. I think there are only maybe a couple grammatical mistakes, but I'm not 100% sure.
 * The content added looks to be in the appropriate sections, which is good.

Images and media:

 * I don't believe my peer added any images or media.

Overall impressions:

 * I think the added content strengthens the article and makes it more complete. The quality of the article is improved with it.
 * I think the content on pollination and nesting/brooding is important information that was added that is a strength.
 * To improve, I would just say keep adding more maybe? It looks like more could be added to the coevolution with flowers topic, and also sections on physiology could be added.