User:Catwood13/Calyptra canadensis/Amwelch 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
- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
- Catwood13 (Cathleen Wood)
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
Lead
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- It appears the information in the lead for this page is new. It adds details about the taxonomy and name of the parasite, as well as locations it is found. So far I like how it reads and the information it provides but I suggest adding in how it is a parasite to this section, as it is for a parasitology class; suggestions include: what type of parasite, what species it parasitizes, etc. The lead briefly describes the wing span of the parasite, not sure this is absolutely necessary in the lead, as it could be included in the development section.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- The introductory sentence definitely describes a moth but as stated above,would recommend working in the term parasite.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- It does not. I don't know if this is just because the page is brand new and it doesn't automatically generate a list of the of contents. I suggest to the author to look into this, it might be a technical issue or just something she needs to add in.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Yes. It includes taxonomy, geographical distribution, and the wingspan. It flows nicely and I don't think it is really necessary to make separate sections for each topic, like location and taxonomy. Wingspan could be included in the development section in my opinion.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- Overall, I think the lead is concise and flows nicely. It introduces the parasite briefly and lets the reader understand where the article is going. The only suggestion I have to improve this section would be to incorporate how it is a parasite and a few details about why it is considered one.
Lead evaluation (comments by reviewer made in bold)
Calyptra canadensis (italicize), also referred to as Meadow Rue Owlet moth, is a moth of the family Erebidae (italicize family name). It is found from Nova Scotia to North Carolina in mountains, west to Texas (does this mean west Texas or from the west to Texas? wording slightly confusing for me, also capitalize cardinal directions), north to Saskatchewan ("north to" also confusing terminology, capitalize cardinal direction). Occasionally straying to Alberta (this sentence is a fragment, consider revising). This moth species from the Calyptra genus is unique as it is the only Calyptra specie to habitat (inhabit?) North America (add period)
The wingspan is 33–40 mm. The moth flies from June to September depending on the location (when you say it "flies" does that mean it is active? Suggest clarifying this).
Content
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes, it is all about the page moth, but I am not sure how it is a parasite.
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes, the source used for the data is from 2016.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- I would like to see more information developed on the life cycle, parasitology, host information, and health considerations of the host. Additional information explaining the morphology of the parasite would be helpful.
Content evaluation (comments by reviewer made in bold)
Feeding Behavior[edit]
It is speculated that the adult stage of C. canadensis is an obligate fruit consumer (add coma after consumer) as little of their feeding behavior is known. This is concluded based on feeding behaviors by other members of the Calyptra genus. (Suggest author elaborates on this, what type of fruit is consumed? how do they eat the fruit? Do they have special morphology that allows them to eat specific fruits? if this is not known, can it be speculated based on other members of the genus?)
Caterpillar Development[edit]
During their larval stage, C. canadensis chosen host plant is the Meadow Rue (belonging to the
Their morphology through stages follows:
Egg Morphology: Lengthwise ridges with an overall spherical shape.
Instar 1 Bright green larvae.
Instar 2 Bright green with development of dark spotting and bands throughout the abdomen.
Instar 3 Band development ceases and disappears; spotting is more visible. Head color is transitioning from light green to yellow with spotting occurring.
Instar 4 & 5 The caterpillar body is now
(Suggestion: break this section into development and morphology. You could describe the life cycle in the development section and then the physical characteristics of each stage and overall body composition/maturation in morphology. Just a thought.)
Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yes, it appears to only be facts.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No. The content is all fact based.
Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, tone and balance is good. The added information is all fact based and there is no opinion in the page at all.
Sources and References
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- The source used reflects the source I found with that specific species name in a brief google scholar search; however, there are quite a few other articles on other species that are in the same family. It might be a little difficult but I suggest the author dig for similarities between species and perhaps include that information, and maybe email or call some of the sources in the original paper for more info.
- Are the sources current?
- Yes, the source used is from 2016.
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- The links work!
Sources and references evaluation
Only one source is used for the page. Would like to see the author develop additional sources, see suggestions above. When doing a google scholar search there were a couple articles that showed the species name detected in the body but not the title. Of course, the author may have already looked into these. Just my suggestion! Additionally, I suggest instead of listing every citation as a new entry you can select the option to reuse a citation. That way you wont have several lines of the same source. Also, note that you do not have to use only peer reviewed articles, you can use websites that follow the guidelines set by wikipedia. I even clarified this with Dr Peterson for my article. When I popped the species name into regular google there were quite a few websites mentioning it.
Organization
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes, it is well written. I have offered some suggestions next to the text in bold. It was easy to read.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- There are only some grammatical errors, but I think the author would have caught these before officially publishing the page.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes, it is well organized.
Organization evaluation
Overall, the organization is easy to understand and it flows well. I do not have any additional comments regarding organization that I have not already provided above.
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
Not applicable. No images have been added at this time.
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?
- I think that it does but that the author will have to look at other sources. Don't forget about those credible sources that may not be peer reviewed scientific articles. The only area I have of concern is if addition sources can not be found, that this topic might not meet this requirement on the notability page:
- If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
- "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
- If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
- It doesn't appear to have a ton of sources available on this topic. The author has their work cut out for them but may be able to do some digging to further develop sources. I don't think the list is exhaustive but I don't think there will be a lot of sources either.
- Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary info boxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
- Yes, the flow of the article is well organized. The lead gives a small amount of information and the sections develop more about the parasite.
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
- Yes, I really like how specific terms were linked to other articles. I made a few suggestions regarding this in the body of my review above.
New Article Evaluation
First, I can't find anything on this page stating it is a new article, so if I am wrong in assuming it is, then please ignore this section. Overall, it is definitely a new topic and one worth looking into. Look to develop the article with information from sources that may not be directly about your parasite and also credible non-peer reviewed sources.
Overall impressions
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- Since I think it is a new article, yes, it would have been build from the beginning!
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- The information is concise and well organized. It is a new topic that should be developed. The source currently used is credible and the links used through out the article are not broken.
- How can the content added be improved?
- Please see suggestions above throughout the entire peer review.
Overall evaluation
Overall, the topic is good. Big take way for this peer review is to develop this moth as a parasite and show the reader how it functions as parasite. Also, develop sources used for the paper. This may take some digging but in my opinion, I think you should be able to find the information you need to fully develop the article. Don't forget that you can use non-scientific sources as long as they meed Wikipedia's requirements. Would love to see some images but I know the copyright rules for Wikipedia are a little tricky. Good job and keep going!