User talk:Nbabb2/sandbox

=Feedback from edeleo7= The lead paragraph about the EAB could use more consolidation in sentence structure. It contains all the necessary information, but as the first thing that people will see when visiting your page, I think it should be more streamlined to be as clear as possible. Your information box looks great. For the life cycle section, I thought it might make more sense to sequence your information as larvae, eggs, and then adults. That is just a personal opinion, as it makes more sense to me to have it described from early life stages on through death. Also, the life cycle section seems to rely heavily on only one reference. Is it possible to add additional references? For effect on trees, I feel that specific names for the "conductive tissue" may be beneficial. Also, if you could elaborate more on how the larvae relocating "to the bark of the tree, effectively cutting of the tissue more" works, that would help with some clarity there. For the treatment section, there are no references at all. Also, the invasive nature section points out that there is another article about Emerald ash borer infestations. Should you combine the two articles possibly? For the North America section, you need more citations. Also, the fact about flying half a mile in the adult life, should perhaps be mentioned in the life cycle section above. The section on the Polar Vortex of 2014 is very interesting! However, phrasing on purging "their stomachs of all internal organs" was a tad odd. Would it be more appropriate to refer to the area as purging "their abdomens of all internal organs" as their stomach is an internal organ? A strange image of the organ of the stomach containing all other organs came to mind when reading this section. For Economic impact and human relations, only "economic" should be capitalized in the title. In the section itself, watch for passive structure. Also, the Ohio report should perhaps be used as an external link below or as a reference instead of just being linked in the passage. I loved the additional images page, but for See also, the Forest IPM page is a stub so perhaps you could link to a page about the ash trees instead? For your references section, you have inconsistencies in your referencing style that need to be rectified and included in your in-text citations. Overall, this is a very interesting and engaging article that covers all your bases!

Edeleo7 (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)edeleo7

=Review from Dr. Becky=

Edeleo7 has provided you with excellent feedback! Your writing is strong, but the organization of the information throughout the contribution needs to be improved. Ideas also need to be supported by peer-reviewed scientific references. The Invasive nature section is one place that lends well to such citations. Critically review the article for awkward phrasing and work choices. What is the connection to the ecosystems effected by the EAB and how might the reduction of the insect be beneficial? How does the loss of ash tress affect an ecosystem and its inhabitants? This could be fleshed out further. The article is interesting and I look forward to reading the next version. B.J.Carmichael (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

=Edit by Parker Schmidt= The points that you present about the Emerald Ash borers are very interesting in the way of their effects on Americans. For instance, a rather descriptive and detailed article precedes your contribution but tells little of how it is relevant to the readers, most of whom are American and who can relate to the facts that you present. You did a good job of relating the recent event of the abnormal polar vortex to the emerald ash borers. Your tying those two together was concise, clear, and effective in obtaining that paragraph's goal. Also you provided good empirical data as well as citations to back up your argument. This is picky, but I would suggest swapping out the words propensity and attrition for ones more comprehensible to a high school student. In your economic impact and human relations section, if possible, since I see that you point out that the "precise consequences" are "unknown" at the moment, I would suggest putting some numerical data to support how the Emerald Ash borer affected the economy and human relations. For instance instead of putting that unappealing link to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources report, you could perhaps summarize its findings in your contribution. Also if you are looking to add further length to your article, perhaps consider adding how the decrease in ash trees has affected other organisms in its ecosystem. Lastly, consider adding a citation at the end of your penultimate paragraph to tell the reader where you acquired that information. Schmidt1510 (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)