Wikipedia:Peer review/Archips semiferanus/archive1

Archips semiferanus

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been told it has the potential to be a Good Article and wanted to run it through PR first. The goals of this PR are two-fold: to improve the article and to see if the reviewer(s) think this could go to WP:GAN and have a decent chance of passing. Thanks in advance for any comments and feedback, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

Okay, I am a fan in conformity of headings and layout in bio articles, although I recognise different emphases are required at times, e.g. in this case we have a significant amount of information on its pestlike activities.

So, I'd create a taxonomy (or taxonomy and naming) section as section 1 - this is good as one can place all stuff on common names, synonyms, meaning of common and scientific names, relations, who named it, subspecies and classification all there. This also means the description section is bumped further down the page a little (a good thing as one often wishes to place images there, which is hard to do if the section is next to the taxobox). I am intrigued as to how the author is the author of three names. One is clearly the mismatching of gender of the specific epithet. Hmmm.

In terms of comprehensiveness, I don't get a sense from the article as to why these outbreaks are so problematic - is there a natural predator which has declined? I suspect some source will have this somewhere.

Otherwise not bad. Might try and make some prose tweaks.

I presume the author was Francis Walker (entomologist) - interesting discussion on synonyms on his page...

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks - I linked Walker, added a Taxonomy section, and rearranged parts of the other sections. I also followed Chrysiridia rhipheus (only Lepidoptera FA) as a model for renaming the sections. I dislike one paragraph sections, so the sections are now "Description and life cycle" and "Distribution, habitat, and behavior". I will try to find more inforamtion on them, especially why the outbreaks occurred. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dincher

Lead

1. consider linking family to family (biology)
2. defoliator is a redirect to Defoliant
3. expand on information about the trouble the bug caused to areas other than the fine state of Pennsylvania

   Could you be more specific please? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

   Sure, the article details problems with the moth in Pennsylvania but nowhere else. Do you have any information about the problems caused in other states and the provinces of Canada? Dincher (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

   OK, makes sense - I found the Pennsylvania stuff looking at Pennsylvania state park and state forest books. I can search for more on different states - Canada was a small outbreak in the osurce I had, there is a bit more on Texas I could add. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

4. Link overwinter or is that overlinking?

   Except for 3, I fixed all of these - thanks very much, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy

1. Why three names? Could this be explained or are scientists just finicky about naming critters.

   The article on Walker says that he made lots of multiple names that caused trouble later - my guess is that he called it each of these names somewhere, and different people use different names, but no one actually discusses this in the sources I have read so far. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

2. Oak learoller appears twice in this section of text. I am assuming that it's supposed to be oakleafroller.

   Yes, good catch and fixed now, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Who says it's most important?

   Adding that next, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Descr. and life cycle

1. I see the link to overwintering here, perhaps remove this link and put the link in the lead.

   I went ahead and linked both - I usually link once in the lead and once at the first mention in the body of the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

2. The adults mate and lay eggs - only one generation of moths is produced annually. is an odd looking and sounding sentence.

   I think I fixed this - thanks. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Although the larvae can not harm humans, most people in Texas will avoid walking under oak trees to avoid them Not sure what to make of this one.

   Basically people avoid being outside and under oak trees in Texas in the spring because they think the dangling caterpillars are icky (even though the caterpillars can't hurt people in any way, at least directly). Will think of someway to say this more encyclopedically. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

D,H&B

1. How come they're in Texas, which isn't eastern U.S.? Are they in the states between Texas and Virginia?
2. Fixed a redirect to this Armillaria mellea too many l's and m's to try to spell it correctly in a PR.

   Thanks! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Any more evidence of destruction caused in places outside PA?

   As noted above, they are a problem in Texas, and I can look for more. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

4. US Forest Service is a redirect to United States Forest Service

   Fixed thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty interesting article considering the subject. I think it needs some more information, not sure if you want to do into a whole lot of depth with this subject. I know I wouldn't. Dincher (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I can find lots of stuff in Google Books / Scholar, but most of it is just the abstract or snippet view, not sure how much effort I want to put into finding these sources, but at least I know now what to do - thanks. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)