User:Romarcum/Fender's blue butterfly/DawsonK1 Peer Review

General info
Romarcum and Roshawndrathomas
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Romarcum/Fender%27s_blue_butterfly&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template&veaction=edit&redirect=no
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Fender's blue butterfly

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - No, a new lead has not been created yet. If the changes being made to this article are substantial enough to warrant a new lead then it would be helpful for the sandbox to note of these anticipated changes.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes, adding a section on morphology was a great idea.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - The sources used are relatively up to date. Especially considering the often more-limited information found on specific sub-species.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - Yes, it would be useful if some other morphological information (besides coloration) could be added. Moreover, much of the morphology section needs to be rewritten due to close paraphrasing that violates wikipedias plagiarism rules. The sentence structure and organization of this paragraph is strikingly similar to the description provided in the source. Nevertheless, this section will make a good addition to wikipedia once the close paraphrasing is worked out. Also, it appears that when the habitat destruction section was copied into the sandbox that the links did not move with it. In order to transfer links when copying and pasting you have to turn on edit mode for the section that you are copying from if you want the links to transfer. Hope this helps.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - N/A

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - The claim that "ALL Fender's Blue Butterflies have a wingspan of approximately one inch" comes off as a strong claim which was not presented in the associated source. I would recommend removing the word "All." This claim may have been intended to emphasize the lack of size-related sexual dimorphism. If this was the case, it may be useful if this was stated more explicitly.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - So far it does not appear that the edits being made will throw off the article's balance. In fact I think that these edits (once finalized) will likely make the article more balanced and well-rounded.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - No.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - No. The Nature Conservancy source is a blog post and may not be the most reliable source available on this topic.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) - Yes the claims do line up with the information found in the associated sources.
 * Are the sources current? - Relatively current compared to the total amount of information available on this topic.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) - It does not appear that there are many better sources of current information on the Fender's Blue butterfly. The editors will have to be careful avoiding outdated information and select the best sources that they possibly can for more current information.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - Yes. Which is really good considering that this is a very early draft. However, when it comes to this sentence: "Invasive plant species are also contributing to habitat destruction, such as Himalayan blackberry and Scotch broom." I would consider rearranging the sentence to make it more clear that the Himalayan blackberry and scotch broom are invasive species. For example: "Invasive plant species, like Himalayan blackberry and Scotch broom, are also contributing to habitat destruction.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - Not really. The only sentence that I found slightly confusing grammatically was "Invasive grasses contribute to habitat destruction due to its high obscuring Kincaid's Lupine." At first I wasn't sure what was being "obscured" according to this sentence. Perhaps change the end of the sentence to "obscuring of Kincaid's Lupine" if that is what was meant by this sentence.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes. (I would probably add the new section on Morphology either before or after the section on Ecology.)

Overall Impression


 * Overall, I think the content being added will improve the overall quality of the article. I think that the information being added is directionally correct but it is too early in development to discuss the overall quality of this work. Considering the limited information on this topic it would probably be useful to thoroughly review as much of the limited literature as possible. Given the informational limitations inherent to this topic, it may be best to focus on quality rather than quantity. For instance, it may be more beneficial to add some extra details to the preexisting sections rather than focusing on creating new sections. Also, make sure to avoid close-paraphrasing in the future and this article should turn out great.