User:TheChurroGuy/Andrena prunorum/Khash195 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I am reviewing the draft written by TheChurroGuy (Jerry).


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheChurroGuy/Andrena_prunorum?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Andrena prunorum

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.)

Lead

The Lead has been updated with new content. The introductory sentence clearly introduces the articles topic, the purple miner bee. While the lead does explain the general life cycle of the bee, it doesn't mention the fact that males and females have different roles. Also, the life cycle information that is covered in the Lead is not mentioned again in the rest of the article. It may help to move some of the information about the life cycle from the Lead to the Life Cycle and Behaviors section. Then, briefly explain the life cycle in the Lead. Alternatively, keep what's already in the Lead and add more about the life cycle (from pupal to adult stages) to the Life Cycle and Behaviors section. The Lead is clear and concise, and it provides a great overview of the purple miner bee and its life cycle.

Content

The content that has been added is relevant. The original article only has a short lead that identifies where Andrena prunorum is present, and it has a short section listing the subspecies. The contribution made by the student adds a thorough amount of information that was lacking originally. The information that has been added is mostly up-to-date since the majority of articles are from 2005 and onward. No content appears to be missing, but I think the body of the article could have more information about the life cycle because it was mentioned in the lead.

Tone and Balance

The content that has been added is neutral and unbiased. The writing is very objective, and the content does not persuade the reader to favor any positions or information over other information. The article also has good balance in the amount of writing in each section.

Sources and References

All of the content that has been added is backed up by a reliable source, such as journal articles. I think the pollen preference that is mentioned in the Lead may need a second citation to support that A. prunorum prefers pollen from Rosaceae plants because the article that was cited mentions a different Andrena species that prefers Rosaceae flowers. The sources are thorough, but if possible, it would be helpful to include more content (and sources) about specific locations in the United States where this type of bee has been spotted. When I search this insect on Google Scholar, I can see articles analyzing A. prunorum in different locations, so it might be worth looking into those articles to see if they discuss locations and climates of the locations where these bees live.

As mentioned earlier, the sources are mostly current since a majority are from 2005 to the present. There are two journal articles that have been cited that are from 1995 and 1969, but both are reliable sources. The sources are all reliable since they are from peer-reviewed journals and a published book on entomology. Also, the links in the references work properly.

Organization

The content that has been added is clear, concise, and well-written. The writing is easy to understand, and it has great flow. The article is also broken down into sections that reflect important topics about the insect, and the sections are easy to navigate as well. I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors either.

Images and Media

No new images or media were added to the draft.

For New Articles Only

This is not a new Wikipedia article. However, the new content is a helpful contribution because multiple reliable sources have been cited. The article is also well-organized, and it has links to other Wikipedia articles for further information.

Overall Impressions

Overall, I think the writing is clear and easy to follow. The content is well-organized, which contributes to the high quality of the article. I like the sections and subsections that have been added. They reflect the content mentioned in the lead. However, it would be an improvement if there was less detail about the life cycle in the Lead and, instead, more detail about the life cycle under the section titled Life Cycle and Behaviors.