User:Romarcum/Fender's blue butterfly/Chairomai Peer Review

General info
Ddav4, Romarcum, Roshawndrathomas
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Romarcum/Fender's blue butterfly
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):
 * Fender's blue butterfly

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi there, I really love the additions you guys are making to this article, they seem like they will add a lot to it. Here's my peer review, which I've tried to make as detailed and helpful as possible.

Lead:

The article's lead could be updated to reflect the new changes made in the draft, such as a brief bit of information related to morphology. The lead does seem to concisely/clearly describe the topic of the article, and mostly mentions the major sections, though it appears to exclude the history section.

Content:

The content added in the sandbox draft is highly relevant to the topic and appears to be a very wise addition to the article. It is up to date, and I really appreciate that it even references the fact that changes to the butterfly's population have occurred in the last year. The article itself does not appear to have any content that does not belong; however, it seems to be missing quite a lot of information (such as morphology, as you guys have mentioned). The topic of the article is about a subspecies of butterfly, which I believe could potentially be considered an under-represented subject. There is a vast amount of insect species alive in the world, yet a great many do not appear to have much information about them available. Specific subspecies of insects likely have even less. While I'm not sure if this is something that Wikipedia would actually consider to be an underrepresented topic, there definitely does seem to be a lack of knowledge here. As a result, I personally feel that making this article of higher quality is very important, especially since the butterfly mentioned is endangered.

Tone/Balance:

The tone of the content appears to be neutral, and no bias seems to be present in my opinion. Of the information given in the article, I would say that most of the sections are fairly balanced, being pretty close in length, aside from the history section, which is somewhat shorter than the others. That being said, the article lacks quite a bit of information, as all sections are rather short. Again, I believe the additions you guys have drafted in the sandbox will be very beneficial to the article.

Sources/References:

The link to the second source in the article does not appear to work, stating that the URL could not be found. Several of the references appear to be websites rather than scholarly secondary articles, and a few of the scholarly articles used may be primary rather than secondary. Some of the sources may not be current, being published before year 2000.

Organization:

Most of the content in the article and sandbox draft is very well written and easy to read. However, I have noticed a few minor grammatical errors, and some sentences which I personally feel could be edited to be slightly more readable. For example, in the lead of the article, I would change the sentence "...northwestern Oregon, United States" to "...northwestern Oregon in the United States," though I'm not certain this is a grammatical issue. I just feel like it would be slightly more readable.

In the sandbox draft, I noticed a few potential minor grammatical errors as well. For example, one sentence in the morphology section: "Both sexes, have a black border outlined by white fringe on the dorsal or upper side of their wings." I would remove the comma after "both sexes" and remove the "or upper" portion, as this might be a little bit redundant after stating that it is the dorsal side. I also think an "a" should be added before "white fringe."

Additionally, in the "Habitat destruction" section, the very last three sentences seem to get a little bit repetitive with saying "Kincaid's lupine." I would mention "Kincaid's lupine" only the first time, then change the other times it's mentioned to just "lupine" to mimic the article itself. Additionally, the very last mention of the Kincaid's lupine in this section capitalizes "Lupine" while the others do not. I would make this lowercase. Other than these minor details, I don't notice anything else I would change in terms of grammar/spelling. In terms of organization, the article and sandbox draft both seem to have pretty good organization.

However, there is one last thing I would change in the sandbox draft. I would edit the text you guys have added to be in bold so it can be differentiated from what was copied from the article while you're working on the draft.

Overall impressions:

The content added seems like it will be an excellent addition to the article, adding information about the butterfly's physical characteristics, invasive plants threatening its host plant, etc. This definitely sounds like it will help make the article more complete and aid in its quality. I am actually very excited to see the new editions to this article in the future, and love that this will help add more information to Wikipedia about an endangered butterfly. You guys seem to be passionate about your article and have already been doing great work, so good job!