User:Pmngybs/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Pyrausta inornatalis

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article to evaluate because it appears to be lacking in many ways, but there is still significant and important information on it that could be looked at further. It is an invasive species of moth in several locations, and if people knew more about it, such as how to identify its larval stage, they could help limit its spread.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section

The article contains an adequate description of the page's purpose. There are no major sections at all, all information is consigned to one simple and short section that lacks even a header. Much work to be done in this area.

Content

The content within this page is relevant, but severely lacking with what available information is out there regarding this species. Some of the language used for describing coloring of the moth (vinous/fuscous) is outdated and pulled near word for word from one of the sources.Technically there is content missing, such as details about the larval stage, images for said stage, and information regarding it's preferred host and any alternatives.

Tone and Balance

Tone of the article seems fine, no glaring issues and seems adequately neutral. Unsure of whether the moth should be listed as being an invasive species in the shown states, as it could be argued that it not being such could be seen as misleading.

Sources and References

The listed sources seem reliable, some are relatively old, but that doesn't necessarily mean the information is incorrect. It would be good to scour these sources and check for any updates to them or other works that are related. They do not seem to be from a wide variety of different people, though it is hard to imagine people other than entomologists or conservationists would be interested in this specific species. All links seem to work as of the time that this review was done.

Organization and Writing Quality

The writing that is present is mostly sensible, I do believe it could be a bit more descriptive and worded a bit more cleanly though. I do not see any grammatical or spelling errors, just that the overall flow of the article is not as good as it could be.The article seems to have pseudo sections, in that the information is broken up and not in one paragraph, but the information is not separated by any margins or headers.

Images and Media

This is one of the most lacking categories on this page. There is one singular image of the moth in it's mature stage, and is not captioned as such. I know there are other images of this species in the public domain, including ones of the larval stage feeding on the host plant. The main image used is adequate, but I would be interested to see if there are any other better images that could be used.

Talk Page Discussion

The only things on this talk page is a statement indicating that the article falls within the scope of the WikiProject Lepidoptera, and that the article is both rated as low-importance and a stub.

Overall Impressions

The article is definitely a stub, and is technically finished, but essentially a skeleton of what it could be. The article does have the taxonomy, an image, broad location range, host plant, and a brief description of the species, which is likely the most information most people would need. There could be a better/more updated description of the species, more images, more information on the larval stage, and more information on how it interacts with host plants.