User:Ari. gg02/Economic entomology/EaglesEyes1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Special:PrefixIndex/User:Ari. gg02


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Ari. gg02/Economic entomology
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Economic entomology

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi, Ari. gg02. I thought I would check out your draft considering we are both contributing to insect-related articles. I hope that my feedback is constructive and that it may be beneficial as you progress on your draft. Let's get into it!

I'll address the two biggest issues I noted straight away. There is some interesting new content, but it I believe it will benefit from restructuring and reformatting. I was left wanting an explanation or justification for the choice of harmful insect examples/case studies provided. Why are Eastern tent caterpillar, blister beetle, and bot flies chosen for discussion when there are such a plethora of disease-causing insects? Most importantly, I am not convinced that the citations provided sufficiently support all of the new content, and I am dubious about the reliability of several of the references.

With that out of the way, let's get to some specifics.

Formatting
I did pick up on some formatting issues. The Wikipedia Manual of Style is available to help with formatting.

Capitalizations

 * 1) Headings should only have the first word in capitalized unless its a proper noun. E.g. "Medical and veterinary entomology" instead of "Medical Veterinary entomology".
 * 2) No need to capitalize "Family". E.g. "family Meloidae".
 * 3) You can edit Wiki link text if needed. E.g. seta instead of Seta.
 * 4) Kentucky Derby, not derby.

Lead
No changes have been made to the Lead as far as I can tell, but that makes sense as the content you've added fits into the original article. The lead is well-written, concise, and accurate. I would recommend removing the plug for the Journal of Economic Entomology which is inappropriate and redundant as its in the "Further Reading" section.

Content
I think the new content is interesting, relevant, and up to date. No issues with equity. As mentioned, I am unsure why the specific harmful insects were chosen for inclusion. I am also unsure why a new section for "Nuisance Insects" has been introduced, when the original article has a "Harmful insects" section. No referenced definition is provided to justify the distinction between the two insect categories. By 2010 the Emerald ash borer had caused almost a billion dollars worth of damage in Canada alone, I wouldn't call that a mere nuisance.

Tone and Balance
I appreciate the tone throughout the draft, it reads as neutral an non-persuasive. The content is appropriate for the article, but in its current state is unbalanced as it only includes negative impacts from insects. Perhaps the next material added can bolster the "Beneficial insects" section of the original article, say with a reference to the important benefits of pollinating honey bees?

Sources and References
The good: reference links work, references are current, reasonably diverse, and include several fairly credible authors (Merck, Gov't of ON and BC, Uni of Minn Ext.).

The bad: These are all Google-able references that, to me, do not suggest thorough research. There are too many statements that are not supported by citations (e.g. "This illness facilitated by insects can induce abortions and has caused up to 300-500 million dollars of loss in Kentucky from 2001-2002" absolutely requires a reference). Multiple statements do not accurately portray the content of the reference (e.g. according to the Merck Veterinary Manual, there are many causes of Mare Reproductive Loss Syndrome, not not Eastern tent caterpillars, which is how I read your discussion of the subject). Finally, none of the references provided are from peer-reviewed sources. I strongly encourage signing into MacOdrum Library and the Web of Science database to locate solid references, such as this systematic review which cites hundreds of appropriate journal articles.

Organization
Content is well organized, though I'm not sure the new "Nuisance Insects" section is justified. It is generally well-written and spelling is good, though paragraphs could be more concise.

Overall Impressions
The contributions are a good start. More than anything, quality and diversity of sources need to be improved and statements must be fully cited. I think you have the potential to contribute meaningful content to this article, but it should be properly situated within the context of the article's intentions. Tone is great, very neutral, but content only focuses on harms of insects, resulting in imbalanced coverage. Perhaps this is just the first go through, I know my current draft is also lacking balanced content.

Thank you, and best of luck with the draft. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

Cheers,