User:Khash195/Chlosyne leanira/Icinco Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Khash195


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Khash195/Chlosyne_leanira?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Chlosyne leanira

Lead
The lead has been updated to reflect the changes made by the student. It has a good intro section that gets you ready to read about this butterfly species. I would recommend that the student modifies two sentences on the line that begins with "Adults feed on flower nectar..." The sentence that follows the first seems a bit abrupt of a change even though the topic of the two sentences are related. I believe part of the reason is that the second sentence begins with "they" since the sentence before talked about adults and larvae. Does the second sentence apply two both life stages? Overall a good and not too detailed lead.

Content + Organization
The content is added is very detailed and informative.

Subspecies
I really liked the subspecies heading since it provides more info to the species. If each subspecies also has their own wiki page, it would be good to link them.

Phylogenetic Analysis
In phylogenetic analysis, I don't think it's entirely necessary to talk about how studies contradict one another. It's probably better to just provide the information on which finding is more factually correct. Also, it's mentioned that "four genera were found to be," but 6 were listed. It would also be cool to link all the species, genera, and subtribe names to respective wiki pages if applicable. This would allow people who aren't familiar with this field to contextualize these names. It would also be good to find a way to section your phylogenetic analysis so that it's not one large "intimidating" paragraph.

Physical Description
I'm guessing you got this information from one source, which is fine. It would still be good to add a reference/in-text citation to each big point so that it doesn't give off this impression that the very last sentence came from the one paper, and the rest was un-cited. You could just click "cite" and then "re-use" so that the same paper is linked throughout this section. Is there any information on the purpose of these physical characteristics of the wings (ie. sexual selection, camouflage, aposematism, etc.).

Food
Again, it would be good to link each of these species names to wiki pages if applicable. The food section gets a little confusing mainly because you're using a bunch of scientific names. You should separate C. fulvia, C. alma, and C. leanira. into their own paragraphs/lines, just so that the reader knows when you're switching species a bit easier.

Locations
You could just type "in the Sutter Buttes mountain range in California's..." instead of "...Valley, known as Sutter Buttes." This will let the thought flow better. You should separate the California, Washington, and Oregon information into their own separate paragraphs so that it's easier to read. You could also add sub-headings so that the reader knows off a glance that these butterflies have been observed in these three states and then can read each sub-section for more detail.

Tone and Balance
The content is neutral and unbiased. Good job!

Images and Media
The only image is the one present in the taxobox. This information is also very detailed so, good job here. It would be good to add images of both females and males species so that the reader can better visualize the physical description section.

Sources and References
Most of the sources are fairly recent. Of course it is always hard to find specific information on certain species, but it's impressive you were able to find this many resources. The sources appear to be diverse and from diverse media.

Overall Impressions
Really good job! I can easily tell you did a lot of research, and compared to the original article, you may as well have started this wiki page yourself.