User:Olivia.gehrke/Hymenopus coronatus/Baylou402 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Olivia.gehrke


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Olivia.gehrke/Hymenopus_coronatus?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Hymenopus coronatus
 * Hymenopus coronatus

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

The lead is clear and introduces the topic very well. It's a brief few sentences that state the scientific name, location the organism is found, and other introductions to this species. The lead doesn't include information that isn't present in the article, it's clear and concise.

Content

The content added is relevant to the topic. The sources appear to be between 2013-2016 within the sandbox draft. But the references listed on the actual wiki page do have pages as new as 2020 meaning the article does have updated information. I can't remember if we need to explicitly reference articles by the authors name when adding new wiki information. That occurred within this article a few times. If you don't need to reference their names within text, then I'd say there are a few spots where I'd recommend not introducing their name and just writing the facts or just the information the articles provided. For example, where it says "the nymph has what Cott calls..."I recommend taking this part out and just rewording what he says in your own words. I may be wrong and this may not be necessary but I figured I'd comment on it anyways to maybe help with improvements!

I'd also recommend with the quote after it says: "flattened limbs with..." I'd put that quote that follows that into your own words so you're not directly quoting and can make the article flow better!

I also don't know if I missed something but who is Costa? I'd maybe put in what their job title in (example of what I mean: an __ecologist__ from __city and state__) to show the readers who they are and why their information is significant. Or put a link to their name so people can just go to another article to read about it! I'd also recommend maybe putting Costa's quote into your own words!

Tone and Balance

I don't think this article tries to persuade, I believe it's just restating researched information. I believe the content appears neutral. It does reference other researchers and what they found or said, I'm not sure if that effects if it's neutral but I personally didn't find any opinions or biases! Paragraph structure makes it read nicely as well.

Sources and References

The information is backed up by multiple sources that are mostly articles within the last 10 years. There are some much older articles but I think those are from the previous wiki editors and the new information added it up to date. I'm wondering if there are more sources between 2018- Now? There might be something interesting to try and add on research from those years. The professor told me to use google scholar and modify the dates range. I'd recommend doing this as well to see if there are any new things to add! I don't know much about this species so there may not be, but it's worth a try! I checked a few links and they worked and also appeared to be reliable sources. There also are a variety of authors and many sources listed!

Organization

I think the information is clear but I'd recommend less quotes and more rewording instead to help the article be more simple and concise. There are some spelling and punctuation errors but just small things. I'd recommend putting your information into the Grammarly checker online and it'll help out! Simple things like "it's" needing to be "its" or having a comma "inside," rather than "outside", if a quote is necessary (same goes for periods). I often do these same things too, it's easy to do but the online grammar and punctuation checkers are really helpful! The content I'd say appears well organized, with paragraph breaks about new topics. Maybe read over the first part of the behavior paragraph again and see where else there could be transition words added or maybe put a paragraph break where it starts talking about "the mantis climbs up..." since thats a talking about its movement now and before that it was talking about its appearance. I don't think it's too necessary but I think it could help with the flow of the text!

Images and Media

There are beautiful images of this mantis with very well labeled captions! They are visually appealing. The images are great and I have no recommendations for them.

Overall

I really enjoyed this article, all my feedback I gave are just recommendations of how I also improve my own article when I read over it and my thinking process with that. I think this species is super cool and the additions gives us great background on this species behavior. Just rewording some things will help this wiki page flow even more! I've heard of these species before and never knew much about them, so it was nice reading over this wiki page!