Talk:Choristoneura fumiferana

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): J.j.lee. Peer reviewers: Jerryshen, Jenniferra.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit Suggestions

I've read through the article thoroughly and have some suggestions for future editors! I think most importantly, there needs to be more information about C. fumiferana other than its disastrous effects on spruce and fig trees (which are still very important). Some areas that come to mind are mating (since producing progeny is essential to their survival) and other information about their behavior, such as adaptations that help them survive. Also, information about their specific distribution other than the short "Range" section on Canada would reveal more about what kinds of habitat and climate the moths survive best in. These would all be helpful in learning more about the species. Y.shin (talk) 04:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Major edits of entire article

Hello, I am a student at Washington University, and I will be contributing to this article. There is a lot of great information already, and I will try my best to keep all of this information while rephrasing and reordering it throughout the article. I hope to contribute additional information as well. J.j.lee (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I kept most of the information that was already on the page, but I reorganized it into new sections and rewrote it to be more succinct. I added a good number of new sections that can be seen in the edit history of the page. I also added different pictures to help with the visual appeal of this article, and I double checked and added links for the many different references that were already listed on the page. J.j.lee (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review Suggestions

Hi! So overall, your wiki page was great! It was very detailed and written in a way that many people (even non-science people) can read it. I made some changes in wording and sentence arrangements within some of the paragraphs. One question I had, that would maybe clarify the nuptial gifts suggestion is talk about how less nutrients would affect the larvae... so in outbreak, if less nutrient and eat old foliage, how does that affect future generations or is outbreak another way to kind of regulate the overgrown population? just suggestions! and good job :) Jenniferra (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi! This is a great article that covers a broad range of information for your moth. I particularly learned a lot about the theories and history of outbreaks of this worm, as your section was quite informative.

However, I would watch out for the wording of some of your sections. I noticed that for your biological control section, your wording was nearly the exact same as that of the abstract of the article that you cited. I reworded that section to make sure that this changed. Additionally, I moved a couple of things; I moved the pesticide paragraph under the "Control" section underneath the "Pesticide" subsection, as I thought it was more relevant under that subsection. I also moved the picture of the egsg from the "Host plant learning and selection for egg laying" section to the life cycle, since it seemed more fitting there. I made some grammatical changes here and there as well.

While you talk a great deal about the habitat of the moth throughout the article, the geographic range and habitat headings are a little short. I think adding more to those sections would help balance the wording of the article overall. I also think you should mention whether the use of wasps as a biological control was effective, as you talk about how different factors affect egg parasitism levels but not how effective the wasps were in reducing budworm populations. jerryshen (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I thought you did a really good job with your article and you provided a lot of information on this moth. Though you had a lot of information I would have liked to see information on the food resources of the adults. I made some cosmetic and grammatical changes to the article to help with the flow of the article. I would have also liked to see pictures on the adult moth. WAdekunle (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Choristoneura fumiferana/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Before I spend time on this, are you still around on this one? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, yes, I'm still around! J.j.lee (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been very busy these few days and didn't have a chance to address your comments. I see that you have already addressed your critiques, and I apologize for the hassle! I moved the Microbiome section to Food Resources as you suggested. Thank you for taking the time to review! I'll pass along the comment to my professor for future reference. J.j.lee (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Shouldn't be introducing anything new in lead section - ideally move all refs out and make sure lead only summarizes what rest of article says. Very short sections - suggest merge Range and Habitat (as is usual). Rather a lot of chapters. Suggest put Life history, Parental care, and Mating into one 'Reproduction and life history' chapter, as subsections. And why not put Microbiome in with Food resources too.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Why say "Needles on " the white spruce? Otherwise fine.
	7. Overall assessment.	Like the rest of your class, article is well prepared. Maybe tell your lecturer the sections could be better grouped next year!