User:Shawn.preston/Metallyticus splendidus/Pacanins22 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Shawn.preston
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Shawn.preston/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The original lead sentence introduces the species scientific and common names of the praying mantis, that it's located in Southeast Asia. The second sentence mentions its iridescent appearance, which is something unique about this particular species.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It has a contents box after its two lead sentences.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise. I think it can be expanded on by its overall look of the species, its region and the fact that there are one of few mantis that do not eat their mates.

Lead evaluation
The original lead is very short with a couple of sentences focusing on the rarity of this species in SE Asia and of it iridescent appearance, along with its scientific and common name. There are very important information, but it seems like it could be expanded on a little bit more. Adding more specific regions of SE Asia could be helpful along with the unique fact that they are one of few mantis that do not eat their mates.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, Shawn adds more specific information about this species biology, anatomy, ecology, diet, embryonic development and its taxonomy.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? All of the content Shawn has added is from at least the 2000's from mostly peer-reviewed articles, so they are up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There are two sources that are specifically for buying insects. These sites do give very detailed information about the insects for sale, but I don't think they are appropriate for Wikipedia.

Content evaluation
Content added to the article is relevant to the topic. Shawn adds more specific information about this species in regards of its biology, ecology, diet, embryonic development and taxonomy. Expanding on specific prey would be enlightening. Also adding a bit more information about Westwood, the person who found the mantis and how they discovered it.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, there are no opinions present, it is all based on facts.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
All content is neutral, there are not opinions are viewpoints being represented, only facts.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Two of the citations is from an online store, references 3 and 4. The rest are scholarly journals.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, except for the online stores.
 * Are the sources current? The oldest resources are from 2006, so they are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they all work.

Sources and references evaluation
Finding some information on some of these invertebrates can be difficult. Keep looking for secondary resources to replace the online marketplaces.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I can find.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, they are broken down into Biology, Ecology & Diet, Embryonic Development and Taxonomical Description.

Organization evaluation
Content is very easy to read, I could not find any grammatical or spelling errors. Editing wise, I would change one of the headings from "Taxonomical description" to "Taxonomical Description. Also changing the heading style from bold and underlined to "Heading" to match other wikipedia articles.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The original article has an illustration along with one photograph. The illustration show the wing span and the photograph does not. There is no additional images added. Not sure if it would be necessary to add any extra.
 * Are images well-captioned? They're not captioned within the article, but when clicking on the images there is more information provided.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Both images are of public domain. The illustrated image mentions that there needs to be a verification for a transfer for Wikimedia Commons
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The photograph could be raised so it is not right next to "See also" and "References", yet still keeping it near "Taxonomical Description".

Images and media evaluation
Both images are of public domain, and were originally apart of the article. I think adding an anatomical illustration and/or life stage illustration could be very useful.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation
This is not a new article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is becoming more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Shawn has a lot of strong facts added to this article.
 * How can the content added be improved? Just further expansion on what he has started, in regards of history of it being discovered and preferred prey

Overall evaluation
The article is becoming more complete with Shawn's additional content. The original article was very brief, only showing one or two sentences for every heading. Shawn brought it a lot of strong facts about the rant's biology, their ecology, their embryonic development and who discovered the mantis. Keep expanding on these facts!