User:NatureAppreciator1/Moraine-dammed lake/24Okapi24 Peer Review

General info
24Okapi24
 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Bee hotel
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:24Okapi24/Bee hotel
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hello 24Okapi24,

Here is my peer review of your sandbox draft:

Follow their Lead:

The lead is short and to the point allowing it to give a good rundown of what a bee hotel is without leaving too much information. I liked how there were statistics incorporated within the draft because it creates a basis for what is to come. Is the article going to talk about invasive bees? Reading forward, I didn't see any information regarding this so maybe it would be a good thing to add. I feel like if there is a sentence distinguishing between two things, one should be talked about because why else was the comparison made? It was mentioned just to highlight an interesting fact about bee hotels but I feel more could be said. I also wondered why wasps are the most common in bee hotels. What I am trying to say is that the lead has everything it needs but it doesn't follow the structure of what is to come. I do appreciate the shortness of it though. It gives great insight for readers who want to know what a bee hotel is and some short facts. I would, however, mention a quick summary of the construction and use that was written in the article because I feel that is important information to know going forward with reading. Everything was well put and well said and I feel there isn't too much to fix except tiny additions.

Clear Structure:

The sections are well organized and in a sensible order. I like how it goes from a lead to the background and then to the main topics which include (in order) the beehive and bee hotel difference, construction and care, use, melittological studies, and then the references. Even though the draft introduced one of those topics and tiny additions to the others here and there, it all worked out for the better. Everything was clear within each section and related to the original reason this article started: bee hotels. I still believe more could be added but that is a lot of work and there is no reason to put that much time into something. I feel the contributions were enough this first go around and who knows, you could go back to it if you wanted. I do want to mention that there are a few spelling errors but it's an easy fix if you go back through and edit.

Balancing Act:

There are a majority of sections within the article that are balanced based on importance and necessity but a few that need either more words or less to capture the significance. These include the sections "Use" and "Melittological Studies." The "Use" section could use more information regarding the certain people who use bee hotels, where they are most commonly used, and the reason why they use them. The only information in that section right now is the places where bee hotels were added. It doesn't give much information regarding the pieces I stated above. If you could add more to this section that would piece the article together. The other section I mentioned was "Melittological Studies." Off the top of my head, I have no idea what this is and how it relates to bee hotels. It is interesting to read the information and understand a study observing 200 bee hotels. I just feel it doesn't need to be as long as it is. Or maybe, it could be added under a section called "Studies" where all the different types of studies could live. That would be great for researchers to see what other people have found. It is just an idea but I feel it could thrive. Minus those two sections, everything else looks really good. The article doesn't conclude or try to convince a reader to go a certain way. It is quite neutral which I will mention more in the next paragraph.

Neutral Content:

This article is quite neutral and I could never guess the perspective of the author by reading this article. It's very information-based and has no opinions. There are no words or phrases that don't feel neutral as far as I can tell. Many sentences start with "Bee hotels [...]" or "According to this study [...]," but those are great reference drawers and cannot be messed up with a personal opinion. The article does not make claims from other people or groups which is good and there is an equal balance of positives and negatives within the sections. One section that stood out to me was the construction and care part. I liked how it started with an introduction in a very---this is how it happens---way. From there, it talks about the materials used and then goes on to talk about the effects of using the wrong materials. I mention this because it is a great example of a neutral paragraph with its positive and negative aspects and the basic general information.

Reliable Sources:

This article was great with incorporating citations. Every reference came from a reliable source (mainly .org sites which are organizations) and had very useful information. There is, however, one reference page that was used eight times while the others were used 1-3 times. I feel like it is okay though because studies usually have more citations than others due to them being super information-in-depth. It is hard to add your own words to something that wasn't yours to begin with. And, Wikipedia doesn't recommend that. I guess, instead of adding seven of the same citations, one at the end of the paragraph would be just fine. This is better than adding it after every sentence. Everything is referenced though and correctly and that is all that matters.

Final Takeaways:

To end this review, there were a lot of things this article does well. For example, to name a few, there were great pictures added to grasp the idea of bee hotels and there was great spacing between paragraphs within each section to change ideas and topics but still under the same topic (if that just made sense). People benefit from pictures because, especially with this topic, it's important to know what a bee hotel looks like to then read about it. This was probably my favorite addition. It was nice that there were captions underneath each picture as well. I do think that there are minor tweaks this article could benefit from including fixing some small spelling/grammatical errors and making the article more balanced (as mentioned above). I think the most important thing to fix, however, is the lead. There is nothing wrong with it per se but it seems too vague. The first sentence is great but the second paragraph doesn't seem to belong there and instead, the mention of the sections would be a great addition. Readers just want to see what is coming up, and a quick summary would be a great fix. Even though there were some faults and a lot of good things, I feel like I can go back to my article and have a new view on how I can fix it. This is what I like about peer reviewing. It makes me think back to my article and see what I can do to make it better. All in all, great job with your additions.