User talk:PinkPetunia/Insect ecology

Hello! I directly copied my peer review for your article draft. The first paragraph corresponds to the second box of the assignment, and the second paragraph corresponds to the third box in the assignment. Hope this helps!

Assignment element	What was done well? What could use improvement or additional details? 1.	New/substantially rewritten text to expand the scope of ecological information on the page -	Text expands content in existing headings or sub-headings, and/or adds new headings or subheadings to a page (~300-500 words) -	Follows Wiki guidelines for writing (i.e., it is clear, uses a logical structure, uses correct grammar and spelling, etc.) -	Follows Wiki guidelines for style (written from a neutral, non-biased point of view, reflects expert knowledge The author introduces some new information in regard to the article that concerns insects’ roles as pollinators, pests, vectors for disease, and food. The way the information is presented is unbiased and straight forward with no grammar mistakes. The main article doesn’t include the ideas that this author has to offer, so I think their contribution is important.

The draft is heading in the right direction but needs more length. I think the author has a great way to partition their ideas now (insects as pollinators, pests, vectors, and food). Splitting those sections into headings and going further into depth I think could yield a great addition to the main article.

2.	Added citations to reliable sources -	At least 3 new citations to peer-reviewed resources added -	Included in References section and at appropriate points in text (in-line citations) -	Citations (in-text and References section) follow Wikipedia format	Each citation used is from a peer-reviewed source. The papers that are referenced are great upon surface level examination.

The citations are used correctly and timely, and they are in the correct format (used in text and listed in reference section). Exceptional amount of citations for the length.

For the body of work there is the author did a great job using their citations. If they can keep the same density of citations per sentence throughout their edit, then they’ll have a really good piece to add to the main article which overall lacks citations considering how long it is. 3.	Connections to existing Wikipedia pages -	New edits “link out” via hyperlinks to existing, relevant Wikipedia pages

The author uses links multiple other pages correlate to terms that they use throughout their edit. The terms that are used are especially pertinent to their article edit. The other wiki pages that are linked are dense and very well written.

I think the author is on the right track with the use of their connections. I would just say continue to do what they are doing and remember to continue to link pages as you go. The reader won’t always have an ecological background, so linking information that we may know may still be important.

Additional comments, feedback, or questions: Off to a good start, keep it going!