User:Megfennelly/Orb-weaver spider/Baylou402 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Megfennelly


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Megfennelly/Orb-weaver_spider?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Orb-weaver spider

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
Based on the sandbox edits, it appears the lead has not been updated. I think this is because the lead already was written in depth prior by other authors and it already introduces the main topics talked about in the article. The lead itself is concise and clear. There does not appear to be necessary information present, everything is on topic.

Content
The titles themselves are well done and organized looking at the original article. The content written in the sandbox is on topic. The author addresses the species by the scientific name, sounding professional. An addition of web construction was added to the section in the wiki page where it talks about webs, showing that they've stayed on topic. The author gave very interesting information about the specifics of this spider's web building and other interesting information like changing of web designs, and the spiders spatial learning. The content appears up to date upon reading. When looking at the two sources, one of the sources is an older source, another is relatively newer being from 2015. But both are reliable journal sources that each have reliable information, so this information added is great new content. I don't think there is anything missing, I think these additions will be great. I didn't really find any spots to make additions to in this paragraph. The only thing I'd suggest is maybe taking out the word "etc." I'm not sure if this disrupts the flow of the list. And perhaps just list the others or just list a few since the source is cited next to it anyways for people to read more!

Tone and Balance
The content is neutral and is not biased. The author does a great job just stating the facts and getting right to the point. This section was easy to read and flows nicely. I didn't find view points that are overrepresented or underrepresented. The author does not seem like they are trying to persuade the reader, but rather offering up well researched information.

Sources and References
The content is backed up by two reliable sources. The sources are both great, reliable journals that are well researched on the topic. When clicking on the second source, it shows the color red meaning there is something missing. I'd recommend going in and manually adding the journal's citation. When doing so, since these are journals, make sure to select "journal." And if you add the volume and issue, make sure to just write the number or it will not work. This will complete this citation by doing it manually and make the red text go away.

Organization
The article is very well organized. The information in the sandbox is concise and goes well with the other information already present in the article. I didn't find any grammatical or punctuation errors. But to be safe it's always nice to paste your section you want to check into the Grammarly checker online. That usually helps me find errors that I didn't realize I even had in my own work. The content looks great, I think this was done did very well and on topic throughout.

Images and Media
The images are clear and labeled properly. There are many images that are all labeled! The layout of the images in organized and looks visually appealing. There are a great variety of actions within the photos I have no suggestions for the images, I'd say leave them as they are.

Overall
This is a great addition, just a couple minor suggestions. I think we're going to have to add to our articles more after this. So I'd just suggest adding some newer sources in and seeing if you can find newer or unique information on this species. The professor had me go to google scholar and search my topic and modified the search to be from 2018-2022. This helps to find the newest sources. Sometimes there isn't much new research, but it's worth a try to look! I read over the other sections briefly but check and see if the previous authors wrote the specific insects they prey on. If they haven't already added that then that would be a good addition!