User:Romarcum/Fender's blue butterfly/Gjimenez21 Peer Review

Lead: The lead has not been altered too much, but I do think that it is good to have a pretty general lead to allow for expansion in later sections of the article. Because there is so little information available, I don't think the lead should be that much more detailed. Maybe adding something about how habitat destruction is a large contributing factor to their endangerment would be beneficial, but it looks pretty good to me!

Content: I think the content added is great so far! I love the addition of the morphology section because it allows for better identification of the species and increases the potential of actually recognizing them in nature. I also enjoy the inclusion of invasive species affecting the habitat destruction-- maybe the page for the sulphur lupine could be edited to add some of this information as well. It does feel like this section is taking up a large portion of the article itself, so maybe just some more information on the morphology and mutualistic relationships. This might make the article itself seem more focused on the butterfly rather than its plant habitat. This article does cover a topic that has not often been addressed in history as the knowledge of this butterfly is limited.

Tone and Balance: I think the authors have done a great job at making sure there is no bias present in their writing. The tone is neutral and I don't think anything is overrepresented. There may be some parts with limited representation like conservation and mutualism, so I would add there but I definitely wouldn't take anything away from any other section.

Sources: They look accurate, diverse, and relevant. The links work as well!

Organization: The sections themselves look good, but there are few grammatical errors within the sandbox. The sandbox is a rough draft, so its not really a big deal in my opinion right now. A reread and some new comma placement is really all it needs.

Overall Impressions: I'm impressed with the additions made so far! The article does feel more complete, and I'm sure further research and additions will just make it better. I like that more information was added about the butterfly's appearance and habitat-- I think these are integral to understanding the butterfly. Just adding a bit more information and checking for grammatical errors will perfect it!

General info
Romarcum
 * 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
(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.)

I didn't know where to put my review so I just added it again.

Lead: The lead has not been altered too much, but I do think that it is good to have a pretty general lead to allow for expansion in later sections of the article. Because there is so little information available, I don't think the lead should be that much more detailed. Maybe adding something about how habitat destruction is a large contributing factor to their endangerment would be beneficial, but it looks pretty good to me!

Content: I think the content added is great so far! I love the addition of the morphology section because it allows for better identification of the species and increases the potential of actually recognizing them in nature. I also enjoy the inclusion of invasive species affecting the habitat destruction-- maybe the page for the sulphur lupine could be edited to add some of this information as well. It does feel like this section is taking up a large portion of the article itself, so maybe just some more information on the morphology and mutualistic relationships. This might make the article itself seem more focused on the butterfly rather than its plant habitat. This article does cover a topic that has not often been addressed in history as the knowledge of this butterfly is limited.

Tone and Balance: I think the authors have done a great job at making sure there is no bias present in their writing. The tone is neutral and I don't think anything is overrepresented. There may be some parts with limited representation like conservation and mutualism, so I would add there but I definitely wouldn't take anything away from any other section.

Sources: They look accurate, diverse, and relevant. The links work as well!

Organization: The sections themselves look good, but there are few grammatical errors within the sandbox. The sandbox is a rough draft, so its not really a big deal in my opinion right now. A reread and some new comma placement is really all it needs.

Overall Impressions: I'm impressed with the additions made so far! The article does feel more complete, and I'm sure further research and additions will just make it better. I like that more information was added about the butterfly's appearance and habitat-- I think these are integral to understanding the butterfly. Just adding a bit more information and checking for grammatical errors will perfect it!