User:CrimsonJF/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Phloeodes diabolicus

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I once tried to research what this beetle was after finding one in my yard and was disappointed to find very little known about it other than it's lifespan, range, and shell structure. Notably there is nothing listed about its lifecycle, how common it is within its range, or whether it is experiencing population decline along with other arthropods. I have found this beetle once and I have lived within its native range most of my life, so I would like to know whether that is to be expected or a troubling sign.

Evaluate the article
The lead section concisely summarizes the information in the article and introduces the topic, including links to other relevant articles. The tone is neutral and neither too concise nor too detailed. However, the lead section includes dietary and habitat information not found in the article that should be expanded upon in its own section. The content is relevant and up to date but overrepresents the bioengineering perspective on this beetle as it has no other sections than the shell structure and proceeding commentary on the strength this provides. The shell structure section does not mention that the structure found was used to engineer highly strong and ductile metal alloys with a similar micro-structure to their shells, which could either be the last paragraph of that section or be used to start a new section about the use of this insect in material science. There are underutilized sources that do describe the lifecycle, range, and reclassification of this beetle from Nosoderma diabolicum to Phloeodes diabolicus. Thus portions of the content and sources are underdeveloped. The organization and writing quality are clear. The article includes helpful supporting images of the insect but could be improved with a diagram of the insect's shell structure in that section. One of the images is missing a source and the other is uncaptioned, so that aspect of the article could be improved. The article is rated as start-class and has little in the talk page, while it overall feels incomplete due to the lack of sections for historical taxonomy, uses in material science, and lifecycle information.