User:SpookyIsland/Necrophage/Caroleebaskin Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

SpookyIsland


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SpookyIsland/Necrophage?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Necrophage
 * Peer review of article draft Necrophage by user Caroleebaskin

Evaluate the drafted changes
There are many strengths to this draft. The lead of the current Necrophage wikipedia article is only one sentence long and does not include much detail. I see that you added a part about different species that exhibit necrophagous behaviour and the role necrophages play in forensic entomology. This is beneficial and important because your contribution is focused on these topics, so well done. The lead does not contain information that is not relevant to the topic and it clearly describes the article without being too overly detailed. The content in your draft is relevant to the topic and there's no sections that seem unnecessary by any means. So far, it reflects all perspectives represented in the published literature and you did not draw any conclusions. No perspective or bias is demonstrated throughout the draft and a neutral tone is used from start to finish. Personally, I found some sections difficult to read, specifically the "Hymenoptera" section, so maybe consider using more concise and clear diction and/or adding some punctuation. There are some grammatical errors throughout the draft. I think a word is missing in the sentence "Trigona worker bees play a similar to the Apis genus..." under the "Hymenoptera" section. Consider adding punctuation to the phrase "...including but not limited to..." I don't think you are grammatically incorrect here, but it can aid in the overall organization and clarity of your draft. The content is currently divided into vertebrates vs invertebrates and then further organized into groups of species. I would try to organize these sections into smaller sub-sections, perhaps by behaviour or individual species, as each paragraph is quite long and contains a lot of information which makes it difficult to grasp. All of the information in your draft is backed up by reliable, peer reviewed sources, all of which had links that worked when I tried them. Some of the references have date errors attached. Luckily, this is easy to fix, just edit the citation and enter a valid date! The sources are thorough and current, and the content of your draft accurately represents these sources. Overall, the content you've added will improve the quality of the article by getting it a few steps closer to completion. Good work!