User talk:Ishkigiizis/Aeshnidae

Peer Review
Can find under the peer review page for this article, or I have copied the comments below. Great Job!

Evaluate the drafted changes
Adding the bit about the entomology is great. It helps contextualize them with in the greater insect group. I also like adding the section about taxonomy. I think this is a good section to add to animals or organisms, since they are classified based on their taxonomy. I also see a section about feeding niches, this would be a great section to add to this article.

I would suggest reordering how the sections in the draft are listed. I think the added sections are important, but that some might go better after the description section. I think the distribution section would go better after the description section, because then readers will know more about the insect before understanding where they can be found.

I think the most important thing you could add to this article to make it better would be to add to sections you have listed. I think it such a great addition, but having some more in the new sections would also improve the article.

I liked how you added sections on how the organism is classified and where they can be found, that is something that I would add to my article.

Lead:

The lead looks like it is straight from the article, but it looks good. I think adding your taxonomic classification to it would make it even better. The lead is concise and states what is in the article.

Content:

The content is relevant, but not that up to date. One source has a date of 2022, but the other two are from the 1900s. Are there any newer source that could be included?

Tone and Balance:

Content is presented in a neutral tone. There are no claims that appear to be biased one way or another. I think the only aspect that might be underrepresented is potential interactions with people or cultural significance if it is there. The content doesn't attempt to persuade the reader. I don't believe that this article addresses any of Wikipedia equity gaps. There isn't any content that doesn't belong, all the content that is drafted to add belongs.

Sources and References:

The content is backed up, at least the sections that have full sentences and appear to be more completed. I think adding some more current literature to this article will really reflect what is published on this topic. I had some trouble with getting the links to work for the references, but that could be because the screen kept turning blue when I clicked on it, so I'm not sure what went one, but the links look like they would work.

Organization:

The information is well organized into appropriate sections. I think that a few sections could be in a different order to help the reader flow from one section to the other, but otherwise the organization is great.

Images/Media:

Are there any other images you would like to add to the article? Maybe of some of the other species that are listed in the article.

Overall, this your draft of what to add to this article looks great. Just a few things you can work on while improving the article. Great work. Blainethesquirrel (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)