Aglossa cuprina edit
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
We've listed this article for peer review because this particular animal has little information on it, and we would like help in organizing and conveying the information in the article as efficiently as possible to increase awareness and maybe spur on new research. ANY critique is welcomed. From grammar to subtitle heading changes to reference format to new research that we overlooked, we appreciate all commentary. Please help us out. While this is a part of a school project, it's also helping to bolster the field of Entomology; you are doing us a great service.
Thanks, Nanayaagh (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement.
- Biggest problem as I see it is a lack of inline references, for example the first three subsections of Description, the first paragraph of Forensic importance, and the first two paragraphs of Research each have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
- Drop the Conlcusion section - this is a Wikipedia article, not a term paper (even if it is written for a college assignment, it should follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style
- Add a caption to the second image please
- I would explain the actual name in Taxonomy - Aglossa seems to mean "no tongue", what does cuprina mean?
- Refs come after punctuation, no space, and there is a space after the ref, so fix things like ...formerly named Aglossa pinguinalis[2][3], ...
- The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections that impede the flow - these shoiuld either be combined with others or perhaps expanded. For example the Description section does not need to be divided into four subsections, two of which are just one sentence long.
- Use {{convert}} to give both metric and English units. So The moth has a wingspan that averages about an inch and a half, and ... could be The moth has a wingspan that averages about 1.5 inches (38 mm) , and ...
- I would use the cite templates, like {{cite book}} for refs to make them more consistent.
- Article seems to contradict itself Research on the species' life cycle has yet to be completed, ... but later in the same section The life cycle of A. cuprina has been recorded to range from approximately 12 months to over 2 years depending on weather and temperature conditions. and the lead speaks of its holometabolous life cycle
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, so nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. But holometabolous life cycle is only in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
- Be careful with WP:JARGON
- Watch peacock words - the lead says it is unusual as a scavenger, but then doesn't seem to explain why in the article.
- Language could be cleaned up a bit - two examples: At the egg stage, A. cuprina is of a rounded oval shape, and gives off a white color. could be just The egg of A. cuprina is a rounded white oval. and this - surely "Grain Moths" is meant in Aglossa cuprina has similar feeding habits to those of the Grains Moths.
- A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Chrysiridia rhipheus is an insect WP:FA and may be a useful model article
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey! You guys managed to pull out a really nice article, especially considering how little information you had. I only have a few suggestions. Firstly, the information on the life cycle of A. caprealis doesn't seem like it would belong under research. I understand why you put it there, but it seems like a lot of extra information when the only part of it that ties it to "current research" is the first sentence. The rest of it seems to be extra information that doesn't really relate to the current research on this particular species. The only other suggestion is that you refrain from using words like "groundbreaking", because it sounds like it has a biased connotation and might not be an neutral POV. But other than that, good job on what you have! Dachshundcrazy (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'd suggest expanding the taxonomy section, if possible. Try making a list of sources and checking off the ones you've exhausted. (Coming from someone outside the project) Ceranthor 21:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry it took me a little while to get over here. I don't know anything about this topic, so I can't even begin to pass judgement on whether it is comprehensive or not. From a layman's perspective, however, here are some issues I think should be fixed.
- In your references list I see Clark, Dale. “Moths of Dallas County, Texas.” 8 Sept. 2008. 18 Mar. 2009. Is this from a book, a journal, or a website? It needs a publisher so we can evaluate whether it is reliable.
- I'm not familiar with this source to be able to judge whether it is reliable or not. Can you provide a little more detail? Aglossa pinguinalis.” Universal Biological Indexer and Organizer. 2009. The Marine Biological Laboratory. 18 Mar. 2009.
- I'm a little disturbed that several of the sources are so old. Generally, when I see a lot of Google books sources that are 100 years old or more, I suspect that the article isn't truly comprehensive and may be inaccurate - a lot of times more modern research refutes things that had been previously held to be true. I highly encourage the use of libraries with real books that might have been published more recently.
- What is The BayScience Foundation?
- Unfortunately, a teacher's lecture is not a reliable source. If the lecture was published somewhere, then it might be. Instead, I'd ask her where she got the information - then you have a new source that has been published and you may find more details than what was examined in class.
- I can't evaluate this source because I'm not sure if that is a website or a book or something else 1421 Large Tabby Aglossa pinguinalis.” UK Moths: Your guide to the moths of great Britain and Ireland. 2009. Ian Kimber. 18 Mar. 2009
- In general, if your source is a website (or can be found on a website), include the link so that others can go look.
- This article is just chock-full of jargon, which tends to scare people like me who have no idea what some of those terms mean. For example, "holometabolous" would likely be enough to make me leave the article. It's good that you are wikilinking some of these words, but we need to explain some of them too.
- I'm not sure what this actually means - "via any sufficient observation"
- I think the lead is too short. It should adequately summarize the entire article. (See WP:LEAD)
- There are a lot of really, really, really, short sections. A section should ideally have more than one or two sentences. This tells me that either a) the article is subdivided too deeply and sections need to be combined or b) the article is not comprehensive and we need to do more research to fill in the gaps.
- Need citations for the descriptions.
- The descriptions are very vague. That doesn't really help me figure out what it looks like.
- Any measurements need to have a corresponding measurement for metric. See
- The second paragraph of distribution needs citations
- Can we draw a more specific link in the second paragraph of distribution as to why these moths tend to be around humans?
- first paragraph of Forensic importance needs citations
- The forensic importance section seems misplaced as its own section. I suspect that this information would do well in other sections (such as behavior)
- Research should be retitled Life cycle.
- First two paragraphs of research need citations.
- The conclusion section should be removed. Allow the reader to draw his or her own conclusion. - I see that another reviewer mentioned this last week, yet that section is still there!!!