Talk:Brown-tail moth/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 19:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• I propose to review this article and will start my review in the next couple of days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

First reading

• Leaving the lead for the timebeing, I will return to it later to see whether it provides a satisfactory summary of the rest of the article.
• Wikilink or gloss technical terms when you first mention them: palpi, frons, hydrolase, esterase, hemolytic and others.
  • Linked for some, others deleted.
• The Taxonomy section should be about this species. It is not relevant that other species in the genus have a wide distribution or that the genus was described by Jacob Hübner, but similar information about E. chrysorrhoea would be relevant.
  • Deleted section. I can not find a species-specific Taxonomy description. What remains is the non-scientific description
• "Where branches are long in males each with a spine to keep it in position with regard to the contiguous branch." - this sentence is pretty incomprehensible, but I hope you are going to rewrite this section.
  • Deleted. That was from taxonomy for the genus.
• In a similar vein, when reading the taxonomy section, you have not yet discussed skin rashes in the main body of text, so this is not the place to discuss other moths that cause similar problems.
  • Moved
• The first paragraph of the Description section, and much of the second paragraph is unreferenced.
  • Citations added.
• What do you mean by the "back of the abdomen"?
  • Description of winged adult entirely rewritten.
• "The species flies at night and is attracted to light" - This should not be in the "Description" section.
  • Moved to Detection and provided with a reference.
• A section called "Distribution" should be about distribution and range. what is its range in Europe? The invasiveness aspect could perhaps go in a different section, or at least a different paragraph.
  • Dividing Distribution into Native and Invasive. Have found a good reference for native distribution across Europe, some countries of eastern Asia (Syria, Iran, Turkey), northern countries of Africa, and then invasive to USA, Canada, possibly China and Japan (?!)
• The later sections, "Life cycle", "Predation, parasites and diseases" and "Causes rash in humans" are better thought out and better referenced than the earlier sections.
  • Thank you. Those are sections I created.
• "Causes rash in humans" is not an ideal name for a section. Maybe "Health issues".
  • Changed to "Health issues," which is better, because not only rash, i.e., asthma.
• The first paragraph of the "Host plants" section is a copyright violation of its source. You should rewrite the information in your own words.
  • Text in question was in place when I started on the article. Yes, it is close to word-for-word to Frago 2010. A problem I have with the list is that Frago did not contain a list, and the citation in Frago does not connect to said list. Revised the paragraph and deleted the list (saved in Talk).
• I like the image gallery of life stages.
  • All the images were in place when I started working on the article
• In the reference section, there are a number of citations where species names are not in italics.
  • Fixed
• Looking back now at the lead, it will need some rewriting when you have dealt with the matters I have mentioned above.
  • Will defer revising the lead until we are closer to completion.
• That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Second reading

The article is looking better now, in fact nearly there:

• Wikilink pheromone
  • Done
• As a matter of interest, many of the host plants mentioned are deciduous trees. If the larvae are overwintering in their webbing tents at the tips of twigs, how do they manage about leaf fall?
  • The leaves that are silk-bound to make the communal nest are anchored to twigs. I will describe this with a reference that has images, but I may not be able to add an image.
• The information about egg clusters appears twice.
  • Fixed
• Did you want to mention asthma in the article?
  • Wrote "similar to asthma." I could not find a scientific or government description of exposure causing asthma, per se, or exacerbating asthma in people with this condition, even though probably true. Also added that the toxins in shed hairs are still potent up to three years after being shed.
• References 4, 8 and 12 have genus or species names not in italics.
  • Done
• The lead section needs a rewrite so that it contains a summary of what is in the rest of the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Will do later today. Completely rewritten as three paragraphs.

It's personal

My interest in this article came after many people attending a conference in late May at a camp in Maine developed rashes, including my wife, but not me. I was the person who identified the presence of brown-tail caterpillars, not to be confused with eastern and forest tent caterpillars and gypsy moth caterpillars, which were also present.

There are a few mentions in the old literature of people dying after exposure (!), but too vague to incorporate into the article.

Also, where I live (eastern Massachusetts) was severely impacted by the initial invasive outbreak in the United States. Town annual reports from circa 1910-1915 report a significant budget committed to combating gypsy and brown-tail moths. In 1914 the budget for moth control was three times the budget for the town library! David notMD (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

That's interesting. How long did your wife's rash last for? Weeks

The lead is fine now and the whole article is much improved, well done! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

GA criteria

• The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
• The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
• The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
• The article is neutral.
• The article is stable.
• The images are relevant and have suitable captions, and are either in the public domain or properly licensed.

• Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)