There is nothing about a "popularity" of redescriptions. If the original description is not good enough (e.g. incomplete), anybody can publish additional description of this species.

Again, it is nothing about "I find the description of the species is not robust" since there are no standards on how long it have to be.

But of course redescription is just redescription (additional description) of the same nominal species, whose name, author, date, type-specimen[-s], type locality &c. remain unchanged (Ixus ypsilonius, originally described by Discoverer in 1900 and redescribed by Improver in 2000, remains Ixus ysilonius Discoverer 1900)!

I agree completely with Roman and would add the following. Redescription of a valid, nominal species should not be undertaken lightly or from a single collection series (i.e. the specimens you have collected). A thorough and detailed examination of all original type specimens is the starting point, followed by examination of as many specimens from various locations throughout the known or suspected species range to give you a complete understanding of the variation that will need to be incorporated in your redescription. This will require either visiting many institutional collections or borrowing specimens from them. Finally, contact known taxonomists in the taxon with which your are working to discuss any "hidden" taxonomic or nomenclatural problems you might not otherwise uncover on your own. The bottom line is a lot of messy, poorly researched and ultimately confusing or useless "redescriptions" are entering the scientific literature and you don't want your work to fall into that category! Good luck on your project.

Thank you all for the comments