User:Thea.sar/Pissodes strobi/Lilladlili Peer Review

General info
@Thea.sar
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Thea.sar/Pissodes strobi
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Pissodes strobi

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead


 * No edits have been made to the lead. I would recommend adding some information on where in North America they are found, for instance.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content added is definitely relevant to the topic; however, if I read the article without seeing the title, I would think it is an article about "The Effects of White Pine Weevils on White Pines and Spruce Trees" rather than an article on the white pine weevils themselves. All the information included in the article is about the interactions between the white pine weevils with the trees they infest, so if you want to make this an article about white pine weevils, I would add information about their geography, diet, life cycle, human impact, behavior, etc.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * All of the content is relatively recent, so good job using relevant sources.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Like I mentioned above, I would suggest you add a couple of other sections about the different characteristics of white pine weevils besides just their pest behaviors. Also, if you want to keep the portion about William Dandridge Peck and how he discovered them, maybe include some more information about their discovery and presence in science later on in the article?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No issue here.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * For the most part, the content is neutral. However, I did notice some parts where your writing conveys some uncertainty, which I don't think should be included in a fact-based encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Specifically, I am referencing this bit: "While certain trees may have resistance to an attack by white pine weevils, this does not necessarily mean they will not be attacked. This involves factors that aid resistance to white pine weevil attacks, but also factors that may encourage pine weevils to initiate an attack on more resistant trees, like food scarcity. A possible reason for resistance to white pine weevil attacks, and ensuing damage, is the white pine weevil's reaction to resistant trees." <-- Words like "may" and "possible" make it sound like you aren't sure about this information, and, if that's the case, it is best not to include it. For both instances where you use "may," I think the sentence would be fine if you just removed "may." Another way that you could indicate speculation within the scientific community with sounding unsure is by saying that something is being studied or considered.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I didn't see any biased claims! Good job writing about pests while staying fact-based and unopinionated.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No issues with this.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No issues with this.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Nice work citing everything!
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * I can tell you read your sources deeply and included relevant information from them.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes!
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes! The oldest one is from 1998, so they are all pretty recent.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * International approaches are represented.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * All of the sources you used are peer-reviewed, so you picked reliable sources. I would recommend finding a few more to cite since you rely on the three you used pretty heavily. You'll also probably need some more sources in order to include more information on the characteristics of pine weevils if you decide to follow my advice from above.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All the links work, but I would look at the 3rd citation. There's an option to manually cite a source which you might have to do with source 3 since Wikipedia didn't automatically fill in the author and date for you.

Organization

'''Overall, well done! You have a good start here. I think if you add a few more sections but keep up what you're doing in these first sections, you'll have a really strong Wikipedia article :)'''
 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content you added is very strong, but there are a few places where I would suggest rephrasing it to make it just a little clearer for readers. There were a couple spots where you used more words than I think you needed to:
 * "The time in which white pine weevils will lay their eggs occurs within spring" <-- could be changed to "White pine weevils lay their eggs in the spring"
 * "The phloem of the shoot is what the larvae of the white pine weevils will feed on once they hatch." <-- you could probably just say "Once they hatch, the larvae of the white pine weevils feed on the phloem of the shoot" as I think organizing the sentence this way makes it a little more palatable
 * "Storage of fertilized eggs within female white pine weevils through the winter season is an observed ability." <-- might read better if you say "female white pine weevils store fertilized eggs through the winter"
 * There are a couple more sentences I saw that could be simplified, but I think you get the idea
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I didn't see spelling errors and nothing really stood out to me as incorrect. There were just those few places where wording was a little awkward that I pointed out above.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic
 * The structure you have right now is very good and well-organized, but, as I suggested above, I think you need to add a few sections to make this a comprehensive article on white pine weevils.