User:Natom24/Bark Beetle/MrModal Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Natom24


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Natom24/Bark Beetle


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Bark beetle

Lead
- There were not any proposed changes to the lead

The introductory sentence is very concise and explains the taxonomy of the bark beetle. Possibly adding something about the bark beetle's range and maybe even appearance could help to add some more context to the general topic. I also think it could be a good idea to leave the pest aspect out of the lead and place that in to more specific sections (like the "As pests" section Natom24 created). The lead does not include a brief description of the sections, but could possibly benefit from such additions. There also seems to be a bit of unnecessary information towards the end about different species of bark beetles that could be added into another section.

Life Cycle and Morphology
- Content is relevant to the topic, I think writing about their life cycle and morphology adds a much broader scope to this article that can add some beneficial neutrality. Mentions a reliable and recent (2015) source to add credibility to the information to be written and expanding the section with more info and sources will provide some good context and depth to this article. Great idea!

- Possibly could talk about the stage where bark beetles are most active in their breeding/feeding

- Also could mention how long a bark beetle is in each stage of life

Description and Ecology
- I think the added info/citations and the rewording done here was very efficient and objective. The user rounded out the somewhat pest-oriented bias of this article in this section, and provided the necessary information in the section more appropriately. It might be a good idea to add even more about the ecology/behavior of the bark beetles, or move some of the bits about bark beetles as pests down to the "As Pests" section so it doesn't seem like most of their ecology is being pests. Provides great citations and links to other articles that help add traceable context to the section.

As Pests
- This is a great section addition! I think this massively helps to mitigate the bias and make it less like bark beetles are only pests, while still expertly conveying the serious problems that uncontrollable populations of these bugs can cause for forests.

- I think maybe you could combine the ambrosia beetles section with this one and put it as a subsection of "As Pests"? This would add some bulk to the section and provide another example of how bark beetles can parasitize trees.

- Provided a good number of sources that have good information about bark beetles as pests.

- Maybe adding something about any theories discussing why bark beetle infestations can get to the point of destroying forests? Maybe some case studies have been done that can be mentioned?

Ambrosia Beetles
- This is a very interesting and captivating relationship! Provided good citations for the information.

- I wonder if this needs its own section, or if it can be merged into the pest section and/or sprinkled into the ecology section?

- Any cases of ambrosia beetles taking out a large chunk of living forest?

Tone and Balance
- I think the added content is extremely balanced, and the author has done a commendable job at trying to add more neutrality to the article.

- No heavily biased claims, only either broadens the knowledge on a previously unmentioned topic or cleans up some of the slightly skewed writing that was already present.

- As mentioned above, I think even more information about non pest related subjects like morphology and lifecycle, ecology and description, and adding more general info in the lead can definitely help to balance the text.

Sources and References
- All new content is backed by a good source

- Sources used appropriately and in the right context with the preceding sentence

- Sources are thorough

- All sources are relatively recent

- All sources added (besides one from the New York Times detailing massive tree die-off) are from peer reviewed articles, wow!

- Links that were checked seemed to work just fine!

Organization
- Content is very well written. Informative, detailed, concise, and extremely understandable!

- Didn't notice any grammar or spelling errors, but this is not my strong suit to be totally transparent!

- The sections added and the rearranging of information definitely helps the article flow a lot better and makes the information a lot easier to digest/understand.

- Great work!!