User talk:Jose I. Martinez/sandbox

These are some comments for the peer-review of your Noctuidae article. First, make sure that you cite your sources. Most sentences in your article should have a citation. You make a few statements (eg “strange mutualistic relationship”, and “it is well known that pheromones…”) that need backing up with either an explanation for why you say that (eg who says that, is it actually well known to a general audience?, how do we know that, which studies have found that), or make an opinion about something which should be avoided (eg, that’s “strange”, “controversial family”). It would be good to have a more general lead paragraph discussing what exactly the Noctuidae are. Also, are there morphological characteristics that you can use to diagnose this group? Right now your first paragraph doesn’t necessarily capture the overall content of the article or give a general picture of the topic. How do you plan to integrate your article with the existing article? In addition to adding your content, how can you improve the content that is already there (eg add citations)? It’s not exactly clear what you mean by some of the recent taxonomic and systematic changes to the family. Could you clarify what was previously thought and how that has changed, and based on what evidence? Cite the studies that have changed things. Also, since you are writing to a general, non-entomologist audience, what is puddling? There is also some awkward sentence structure. I have made some edits to the text but some of the sentences could use reworking. You did a good job of linking to other wikipedia articles. Benthiccurtains (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from Emily
Emilysessa (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

You've done a really, really great job with this page! It is hugely improved from the older versions in the history; I appreciate that you added more images too, most of the students in the class haven't done much of that, and it really livens up the page. Cleaning up the Systematics/taxonomy section was also a great improvement. I'm also glad that you took the advice of the peer review and added more citations, but there are still sections that need citations added (see below).

In the first section, please clarify these two sentences, I'm not totally sure what you mean:

1. "but after regrouping Lymantriinae,Catocalinae and Calpinae within Erebidae, which gave it this title now" Please rephrase this so it's clear exactly what this regrouping consisted of - were these three families combined into Noctuidae? Are they no longer considered legitimate? I'd like a bit more information so we can visualize exactly what happened to produce the currently recognized group Noctuidae.

2. "However, it is still unfinished as more changes continue to appear between these two families." What is the other family you're referring to with "two families"? Not clear what you're referring to.

Description section: Need to add citations for the first few sentences (each sentence needs a citation, even if they all have the same one). Same with the pupa and eggs sections, there are no citations there. Also check punctuation and there's a misspelling (form should be from) in the first sentence.

Mutualism section: Please explain this sentence further: "has a strange mutualistic relationship with pink or carnation plants " What is strange about it? Please provide some details, with citations!

Food guilds: Again, need to add citations, especially in the first and last sections, which don't have any.

Reproduction: Citations needed.

Systematics section: you can add some more links to other wikipedia entries here - words like systematics and monophyletic have their own pages and you should link to them. Please read through the article again in general to look for places where you can add more links.

Great job!!