User:Mvtrinh/Great purple hairstreak/Henrymn1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mvtrinh (Michelle)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mvtrinh/Great_purple_hairstreak?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Great purple hairstreak

Lead

 * While the lead of the main article hasn't been updated yet to reflect the contributions added, the current one in the draft is more succinct and provides a better summary of the content in the article. The introductory sentence concisely introduces the species by mentioning its distribution, appearance, and classification. However, some mention could be made of its life cycle as this is a major section in the article. All the information presented in the lead is discussed later on in the article. Overall, I would say that the lead is not overly detailed, nor does it contain extraneous information. Its level of conciseness is appropriate given the information discussed in the article.

Content

 * The content added (an elaboration on the description and life cycle) adds relevant and up to date information to the article. The information provided appears to be comprehensive, given the limited availability of resources pertaining to this topic. All the content in this article, however, is relevant to the topic. This article does not address one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

 * The content added is neutral, and there are no claims that are biased towards any particular position. No viewpoints seem to particularly be overrepresented or underrepresented, and due to this, the reader is not persuaded to taking up a particular stance on this topic.

Sources and References

 * All new content is supported by current, thoroughly-sourced, and reliable works. The content adequately summarizes the important information from the sources. The links in the sources all work, and the sources are written by authors of different ethnicities in different languages.

Organization

 * Overall, the information is presented in a manner in which it's not too difficult for the reader to follow. However, syntactical revisions can be made to change the flow of the sentences. The extensive usage of appositives and commas sometimes results in sentences that can either be rephrased or split into different sentences so the reader isn't distracted from the information in the article (e.g. last sentence in the "Adult" section).
 * No grammatical nor spell errors were detected.
 * The organization of the article is logical, and the sections flesh out the major points of the article well.

Critique as a New Article

 * Yes, this article fulfills Wikipedia's "Notability" requirement. This species has been included in encyclopedias that mentions other hairstreak butterflies, and has also been a part of different studies (including one that studies the nature of its defense mechanism, the "false head". The sources of reliable and are secondary sources. Additionally, the nature of this topic (a species of butterflies) allows it the authors of the sources to be independent from the source.
 * While the list of resources isn't great in quantity, this is due to the limited information available on this topic. The listed sources cover a diverse set of details pertaining to this topic.
 * The article follows similar patterns to other articles; its major sections (Description, Distribution, and Life Cycle) are typical of what one would expect to see in a wikipedia article about a specific species.
 * While this article has hyperlinks to other articles, I believe that there are certain keywords that can be linked as well (instar, eclosion) because these are not typical words used in everyday language. Linking to these might not only help with comprehending the article, but might increase the frequency at which this article is visited.

Overall Impressions

 * The content added has undoubtedly improved the current quality of the article. It elaborates on topics that are briefly introduced in the current article, and is a step that furthers the discussion on this topic. This article was well organized, contained relevant information, and had diverse sources. My main critique would be to reconsider the phrasing of the sentences as this negatively impacts how well the article flows. Additionally, considering introducing more hyperlinks to words that are relevant to the topic and not used colloquially.