User:Thea.sar/Pissodes strobi/Cinobunny Peer Review

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
The lead is good.

The paper is still missing some of the things listed in the species article guidelines, like a morphology section, range/habitat, and behavior.

Your reproduction section could probably go under behavior.

I do think that the damage of white pines is probably good being seprate.

Your tone is neutral which is perfect.

The information you are adding seems to go well with the rest of the article.

sources seem great.

The addition seem well written.