User:Sella rainbow/Carabus dufouri/Sophykbutt Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

I am reviewing Sella rainbow article contribution.

User:Sella rainbow/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

The lead has been updated. Before the article had one sentence describing the beetle. Now there is a full paragraph with much more detail. The introductory sentence and the following sentence is a bit problematic with a bit of redundancy. The first sentence states it is found in southern part of the Iberian Peninsula. But the following sentence says its endemic to Spain. could combine this into one sentence. Next the beginning of the sentences don't have capitals, that is an easy fix that will make the paragraph more readable. The following of the paragraph does touch on the topics mentioned in the article such as the size of the beetle, but there is not any information about the behaviour of the beetle. Simply its morphology, habitat and origin. Overall the lead could us a little bit more work to smooth it out and for it to sound less choppy.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
• Is the content added up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation

The content appears to be relevant and up to date. The original article has very little original information so this contribution will help to round out the original article. There is a lot of information about the morphology of the beetle and very little about the behaviour of it. The information about the morphology is needed for this stub article. But the section about behaviour could be fleshed out more. There are many concepts that have little information and could use some more information to totally understand what the author is trying to portray. As well, there were some sentences that were not correct such as "so activity begins early September for males and mid September (usually two weeks after males) for September".

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

The overall tone of the article was very neutral. The author was not empathising an opinion over another. Much of the information were facts about morphology or reproductive timing of the beetles and the author did a good job presenting this in a neutral tone. The viewpoint about morphology is a bit overrepresented and would be okay if the portion about the reproductive behaviour was equal in information.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

Most of the content is backed up by a reliable source. There was an instant or two where there was some information giving without a source such as the line under seasonality and reproduction, " on average there are 6 ovipositions per seasons that results in 0-19.44 eggs laid". But overall there are a decent number of sources and while some are a little older (1998), the rest are relatively recent.

After checking a few references, they all seem to work and lead to scientific articles.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

The article has a decent contribution, but unfortunately the article is a little not easy to read. The section in the lead and morphology with all the measurements of the beetle is hard to read in that format. As well many of the sentences are run-ons or sentence fragments. Another read through would be very helpful to try to make the article flow more. There are grammatical errors that could be fixed. Perhaps resources like the writing center would be useful for the author to help smooth out the flow of the article.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• Are images well-captioned?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation

Yes, the author added two images. the images are relevant to the content and add some context to what the article is trying to address. The images do adhere to Wikipediaes guide lines and regulation.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

• Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
• Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

After this contribution, the article is much more complete. The article adds much needed information to the original stub article. The author has taken time to detail important information about morphology. To improve their contribution, one more reader through to fix grammatical error and sentence structure in some areas. As well if they could flesh out the section about reproductive timing then I believe there will improve the article greatly. The ideas are there, they simply needed to be talked about more and potentially given their own paragraph to draw them out.