User:Simone.eloise/Worker bee/AshleyMasse Peer Review

Lead
Edits were not made on the introduction section of the article, which was already written very well.

Content
The addition of detail and sources to the fanning bees sub header was a good choice. I would make the sentence "If the chamber becomes too hot, the workers collect water or diluted nectar and deposit it around the hive, then fan air with their wings to generate cooling by evaporation" into two sentences to improve clarity. This can be done by putting a period after "hive" and capitalizing "then". In the sentence "Honey bees begin as a egg..." replace "a" with "an". No comma is needed in the sentence "Worker eggs are laid in smaller cells compared to drone eggs, and will hatch after three days into a larva".

Tone and Balance
The tone is neutral and the writing is informative, not persuasive, which is what Wikipedia wants. There are no under/over represented claims and the edits go into a comfortable amount of detail for the reader without getting overwhelmingly scientific.

Sources and References
There was highlighted error with the date in source #1. One of the sources cited was a website, although it was a university website. I don't think Wikipedia will keep up information cited from a website. I think the addition of more peer reviewed journals or books to the reference list would make it more credible. Check out the library, they might have books on bees that you can use.

Organization
It was a little unclear where the edits were going to be implemented in the article, but I don't doubt they have their place. The sentence structure read well, so I wouldn't rearrange anything besides breaking up that one sentence I mentioned earlier. I mentioned a few grammar errors in the content section earlier. The life cycle of the worker bee was arranged in a clear, consecutive way so that each sentence represented a different part of the life cycle. This made the information easy to understand.

Images and Media
No images were added in the edits.

Overall Impressions
The edits add a lot more detail to the processes of brood heating/cooling as well as the life cycle of a bee. It was easy to understand due to the clear writing that used a formal/neutral tone. A strength of the chosen edits is that the processes are not just stated, but they are explained in a simpler, educated voice so that the reader has a chance to learn more information.

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

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.)