User:Lucanus-cervus292/Leucorrhinia dubia/GracefulGoat Peer Review

Peer review[edit]

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

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?

The article lead has been updated with edited information backed by citations which were not present in the article's current version. The introductory sentences are concise and give quick overviews of the species' scientific name and distribution. The lead is not overly detailed and would confuse a casual reader only checking the lead.
The full article has been expanded to include new sections, not all of which are reflected in the lead. The "description" section discusses L. dubia morphology, and the "life history" section goes into significant detail on the species' life cycle. Elements from these sections, as well as the conservation section, could be added to the lead in order to make it more reflective of the article's full contents. I recommend adding at least one more short paragraph.

Guiding questions:

Added content includes new sections on L. dubia morphology and life history as described above, as well as expansions on the distribution and conservation status of the species. These additions significantly improve the quantity and quality of information in the article.
Certain citations, such as the L. dubia flight period in the article's lead, have been edited to reflect more up-to-date, verifiable information.
The "life history" section contains details about L. dubia behavior, ecology, diet and reproduction. I wonder if each of these topics could benefit from having their own subsections, and expanding a little bit on each? I do see the value in organizing around the larval and adult stages for an insect, so don't take this suggestion as a "must," just an idea I wanted to state.
Many Wikipedia articles include a "see also" section that suggests additional articles related to the current one. A "see also" section for this article might include the Sphangum moss that L. dubia reproduces on, or the species that are often confused for L. dubia, or the conservation programs related to the species.

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?

The added content largely strikes a neutral tone. It presents new scientific information and more recent efforts regarding the conservation of the species. These additions are facts and appropriately presented as such, not as suggestions which may or may not be true.
"Populations of L. dubia in the UK, the Pyrenees and the Alps have been found to be more genetically distinct than other European populations, and should therefore be considered priorities for conservation, as they are likely to retain important genetic variation for adapting to changing climate conditions." This sentence may reflect a subjective opinion that could persuade a reader towards a certain viewpoint. The use of "should" has persuading connotations, even though the suggestion draws from scientific evidence.
Other than the above sentence, the added content does not prioritize particular viewpoints over others, nor does it make any attempt to persuade a reader towards a certain viewpoint.

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?

All added content comes with citations. The list of citations itself is substantially expanded (from four in the current article to 24 in the sandbox draft). These sources reflect an array of current-day findings by academic researchers on L. dubia, ranging from the 1990's to the present year.
The links I checked all worked, although the links in the sandbox draft are all carried over from the present version of the article. New links have not been included with the added content yet.

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?

In general, the common names of species should be presented with lowercase letters (unless at the beginning of a sentence). For example, the article references the "Black Darter" in the middle of a sentence, which should be rendered "black darter."
Otherwise, the added content is concise and presented in a manner that is simple to read and broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic. I suggested a possible means for further tweaking the sections above, although this is not strictly necessary. There are no major spelling or grammar issues.

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

No additional images or media have been added. The images from the current version of the article are not present in the sandbox, although I assume this was for ease of editing.

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?

The article is significantly improved, with substantial additions of new, verifiable, high-quality information. The new content constitutes several additional sections to the article, and includes information on L. dubia distribution, life history and conservation that were not present previously. The article as a whole is easy to read and well organized, and in my opinion only requires some small presentation tweaks, and potentially the splitting of the "life history" subsection into a few more focused subsections. Well done!