Talk:Emerald ash borer/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed reading this article, and will review it shortly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Would be better not to use acronyms such as EAB, GDD: these only serve to distance the reader and make the article less approachable. GDD is only used once after being defined, so hardly worth it anyway. EAB names the article's subject, probably not a good practice. There are several non-acronym ways to refer to the article's subject in this case, such as "emerald ash borer", Agrilus planipennis, A. planipennis, "the species", "the insect", "the beetle", "it", or indeed nothing, for example where "EAB populations" could just be "populations".

I went back and forth on EAB when I started editing here since it had been used in previous versions, but I agree emerald ash borer can be simpler without too much extra text. I've updated these. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently mixes human aspects (discovery, commercial damage) in nearly every section. I'd suggest that a cleaner separation into biology and human aspects would be an improvement in terms of clarity and ease of reference, and a more usual structure. This would require a little reorganisation, with a new section on "Interaction with humans" (or similar), and moving the relevant parts of the article into it.

This is actually on purpose because the human and environmental aspects are so intertwined (all falling under the umbrella of EAB as an invasive species). The article layout was setup to mirror another invasive forest species GA article, Sirex woodwasp. The problem in the past hasn't been human aspects, but separating general biology from invasion specific biology. What I tried was to restructure the headings so that As an invasive species is a main header in place of ecology.

Thank you, it's a great improvement.

On human aspects mixing into nearly all sections, are you seeing specific issues in the Range to Life Cycle sections? I only see brief mention of human aspects in the identification section, but there's going to be some mention of that due to taxonomy (discussed in your comment below). Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just name the bit about Armand David "History"; all the rest is now fine given the native/invasive split which does the job perfectly.

Noted that not much was known about the subject until it invaded North America, but some effort to globalise the article is needed. For example, material from Scandinavia? or Russia would be useful. I can help with Swedish if needed, and there are plenty of Russian-speaking editors around too. Here's a paper in English about Russia. Separating the basic biology from the human aspects will help, too.

The Russian paper is a primary source, so I wouldn't be using that. The Valenta et al. source I cite in the article a few times now is a review of EAB in Europe. Being published in October 2016, this article should already be relatively up to date on the European information. It reflects a lot of what's already in the monitoring and management section without much more additional information on biology aside from some areas where it's spread. Sweden, etc. isn't mentioned, though I know there is chatter going on there about potential finds in shipping material, etc. I haven't seen sources that warrant mention yet though beyond that. One piece that was missing from the wiki article though was the potential spread to central Europe. Otherwise, nothing stands out for information lacking about Europe that's available in the review at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the reorg and the native map the secondary nature of the Russian centre is obvious, and the Sweden thing even more so (tertiary?). It's plain that the work done in America is fundamental. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~All the instances of "will" (see Host plants, Monitoring and management) are unnecessary and should be removed.~~

Done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to add the taxonomic names after English names of trees, e.g. "green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)". The English names (in this case, red ash, green ash for the same species) are variable and unreliable.

Done, but each of these are piped or redirect to the correct species already (though I could have specified species in the pipe too), so was the concern more that the scientific name should be in the text instead of wikilinked to explain further if there was confusion? Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly far clearer now.

Lead

~~Perhaps gloss "jewel beetle" with "(Buprestidae)".~~

Done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Suggest describe native range briefly.~~

This is specified as northeastern Asia now, but I added a note in the next sentence about native trees to Asia (more detail would be moving towards repeating the current range section). Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of lead is currently about the species as a pest. Suggest one paragraph about its biology, one about being a pest.

Being an invasive species is the context of how sources cover the species and its biology (some biology is interlinked to invasiveness), so there has been some care to make sure that's weighted accordingly. I added a sentence on feeding and life cycle for general biology though.[1] Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Range

The prominent map at the top of the section gives a somewhat contradictory message to the text, suggesting that the insect is all-American. Suggest a) split to make North America a separate (second) paragraph; b) make the map smaller and c) move map down beside North America text.

Discussed more in the next comment, but I moved the North American map into the quarantine section where it should hopefully alleviate these concerns. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~It would be desirable to begin the section with a world map, which could be small and simple (there are blank world maps that can be freely adapted on Commons).~~

The map situation has been a bit complicated. Originally, there were no world maps presented because they need to be frequently updated as new provinces or countries are added. The USDA North American map is updated frequently and easily accessible, so that's why it's included. It would be nice if a more worldwide group put out frequent maps like the USDA does, but European maps aren't included because they just aren't available or are really on the cutting edge of the range (excluding western Russia as part of Europe anyways). The general European situation lends itself better to text description right now as more information comes out in places like Sweden. I did finally find a source that has a decent Asian and Russian map though, so that helps on the Asian side of things. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it has transformed the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~The "as of 2016" is redundant to the "spread west to Sweden ... at 40 km per year".~~

Not exactly. That source is commenting on spread in a specific time period rather than making forward statements beyond 2016. Some kind of qualifier is needed, so I've tweaked the wording a bit to make this clear.[2] Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Identification

We need a description here of what the adult is like (shape, length of antennae, etc) with the size of the adult (that's currently in Life cycle, so it needs to be moved here), and I'd have thought the time of year people can expect to see the adults.

I moved some of that overlap into the identification section. Time of year beetles emerge isn't related to any taxonomic identification though and is pretty squarely in the realm of life cycle, phenology, etc. Antenna size isn't listed as a diagnostic characteristic in sources (though shape is), but the section already contains information on important adult characteristics. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The material "The French priest ... in 1888" does not belong in this section.

Both physical descriptions and directly related taxonomic history in identifying the species belong under description information. I added a bit more to clarify, but the timeline for how the species has been described is actually important for how it's been identified as it has gone under multiple names with some groups not aware of the two not being the same species. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Host plants

* Much of the material here is about pest behaviour, i.e. it belongs in the "Interaction with humans" section, not here. The section should (if it belongs here at all) only describe basic biology. Perhaps however all of it should simply move to the humans section and be renamed "Species affected" or similar.

Host-plants are not humans, so I'm a little confused about the human comment since it's entirely about the plant-insect interaction. When an insect uses a plant as a host (as opposed to general herbivores), that's one of the main aspects of its biology. Generally when host-plant interactions are discussed, a list of hosts is given in addition to describing how the two interact (i.e., susceptibility, resistance, host recognition, etc.). That especially is the case when the subject insect becomes a significant pest to the plant (back to ecological invasiveness again). Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Life cycle

~~Suggest we remove the "Gallery" heading.~~

Done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Suggest remove "Emerald ash borer" from all four image captions. Third caption might read "Adults exit from D-shaped holes."~~

Done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the function of the fourth image? If none, please remove it.

The intent was to have dorsal and ventral views of an adult somewhere in the article. The text discusses to some degree the differences between elytra color and the rest of the body, so the ventral view is meant to distinguish this to some degree. Not a huge detail, but it seems worthwhile to keep the image. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology

Nearly all of this should go to the Humans section, except perhaps the para about overwintering. There should however be something on the beetle's ecology, which could be a brief discussion merged with that of its host plants in its native range (i.e. some reorganisation, change of section headings, and perhaps some new material).

I renamed this section as As an invasive species as I mentioned before because creating a humans section would be inappropriate considering how a lot of this material is not commenting on any human aspect, but rather the species invasiveiness with both ecological and human implications that are not really able to be disentangled. This was actually a source of contention in this article's past as it was once split into essentially a species stub page and separate emerald ash borer infestation page to cover the invasive aspect before they were merged back together.

As a reminder, little was known about this species prior to it becoming invasive aside from a description, some basic life cycle information (if that), and that it could be rarely found in stressed or dying trees in its native range. Because of that, the invasive narrative permeates almost all the information on this subject. That's just how sources describe it currently keeping NPOV in mind (and why the two pages were merged as they were). Because ecological and human factors are sometimes highly intertwined in this case (especially in new biological information related to management), the two concepts really cannot be treated in separate sections. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The new split is a huge improvement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~"show high mortality", "show resistance": suggest reword (e.g. "there is high mortality among North American species ..." etc).~~

Done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~What does "Larvae can also high heat" mean? Suggest you reword and explain what's happening, and if possible why.~~

Just a missing word here. It should be larvae can survive high heat. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monitoring and management

~~Should be a subsection of the 'Humans' section.~~

Related to previous comments, this nests within the invasive subject. Some biological information on the species, like biological control/parasitoids, mating pheromones, etc. were researched in the context of invasiveness both from an ecological perspective and human use. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~First paragraph seems an odd way to begin.~~

I've split Monitoring and Management into different sections to help this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Sometimes trees are also girdled to act as a trap tree" needs to be rephrased (sing/pl), and what is girdling? It sounds like cutting all the bark off in a ring, which is a way of killing a tree—is this what is intended, and if so, why so drastic?

Girdling is wikilinked for this purpose in the Host Plant section, so I've done the same here. Stressing a tree like that can be used for monitoring for the presence of EAB in an area as my edit hopefully clarifies now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~"will hunt", "will not compromise", "will compromise" - suggest remove all three "will" instances, and avoid repetition of "compromise".~~

Done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~"wasp, Cerceris fumipennis" - suggest gloss as "parasitoidal wasp".~~

Done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Biological control wasps: why not include an image of one of these species, perhaps the most successful one.~~

Done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

~~Please merge refs 16, 26, 28. However #26 does not support the text it follows, another ref is needed, and I can't see what #28 is for, either. Please explain.~~

Done. #28 is meant to either show where infestations have been found, or where quarantines exist. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

External links

~~Suggest remove items 1 (what's it for, why say "new" or "prominent"), 2 (seems to be in Indonesian) from list.~~

I don't know about item 1 (I am just a passing by editor) but the second website is about food and not about beetle at all, so removed it. Perhaps USDA owned the domain once. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was really surprised by this. It looks like the USDA let their domain name lapse. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and I've de-peacocked the first item. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Suggest remove redundant categories: Beetles of Asia surely covers Japan, China, Korea? Russia a doubtful case.~~ Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out of town until the weekend, but I'll address these this weekend. Thanks! Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guessed as much, but thanks for letting me know, I was starting to wonder. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First off apologies for taking awhile. I was waiting for comments, but never saw anything pop up on my watchlist for this page for some reason (must be related to how the GA process isn't actually hosted on this talk page).

Overall, most of the suggestions make sense. The one area that should be discussed a bit though is the idea of a humans, etc. section. I've described issues with that in my comments (namely that the focus isn't on humans, but as an invasive species), but this was actually tried to some degree in past versions of this article. That caused problems with weight, etc. in part because sources do not describe the subject in a nice clean cut here's the insect biology and here's the human interaction. That's been a source of conflict for editors in the past (editor preference vs how sources treat the subject) that was best addressed by integrating the invasive biological information into its own section where human factors sometimes apply a lot, and other times are not as related. Let me know if that aspect was clear, and I'd be happy to try to clear things up more if need be (I'll be checking this page every day now in addition to my watchlist). Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all fine, we normally have an Interaction with humans section to cover everything from pest control to folklore, but the Invasive one does the job here as the rest of human culture hasn't had time to react.

Ah, it looks like one needs to watchlist this page specifically rather than Talk:Emerald ash borer. That explains a bit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the GA page is transcluded (not copied) to the talk page, so changes to it don't trigger talk page alerts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

This is a sharply written and detailed account of a major pest. The review has in my view greatly clarified the article and I hope everyone will feel the same way. The article now covers both the insect's general biology and its invasive effects. The article is clearly structured and reliably cited, and is certainly of Good Article quality. Excellent work! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]