Talk:Emerald ash borer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Insects (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Beetles (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Emerald ash borer is within the scope of WikiProject Beetles, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to beetles. For more information, visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


I'm sorry I suck at the whole wikipedia editing thing, but the first sentence of this article made me lol. hard.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


Source of wood moving violaters DDerby 06:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Change on 13 Jan was to replace my paragraph deleted Jan 6. The re-inserted paragraph provides balance to the text clearly advertising a specific product, an insecticide. A full discussion of pros and cons of different treatments, and interpertation of the experimental results would involve more than the Arbor-jet paragraph covers. I would suggest that if ArborJet (or their ardent fan) wishes to nakedly promote the company's products, they do so on their own www site or in paid advertisements.

Cappaert 22:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Their is no more ongoing Experiments for insecticide formulation that need their results interpreted by personal point of view. Official Governmental Statistics are publicly available now, but not on this page! Somebody is not promoting a product here, but pulpiting one of four god-sent cures during a natural disaster. Newspapers are full of misinformation so people are desperately turning to Wiki during this modern day man made extinction event to get confirmed facts out to the public. Please always edit questionable info, but don't erase it all together. For example on your point above, help out by replacing arborjet name with "Emamectin Benzoate" instead. I took that direction along with including history of it's use first preventing gov't farm fish lice outbreaks with proper reference links, but even the most cautiously added facts to Wiki-EAB page that could correctly assist ash tree owners during this extinction of our ancient American evolved iconic tree species have all been erased over & over again. A true factual wiki page about EAB should have every fact concerning this borer from its homeland of Asia to info about every good and bad fact about insecticides utilized to deal with the topic titled Emerald Ash Borer. I agree this is page is about the Borer, and effects of and solutions to EAB are now relegated to the "Emerald Ash Borer infestation" titled page. But "Infestation" is not even a correct word to use because to me infestations do not go away, only to come back later like EAB does in spring by leaving tree, then re enters in summer. Here is a good title: The yearly re-infestation of American Fraxinus tree species by an introduced subset population of the Asian Emerald Ash borer effecting trees on the North American continent and Western Russia. In the end self employed Wiki police have made it their point to sanitize this public "Reference page" about EAB instead of guiding first time contributers that have only the publics best intentions at hand on staying within the guidelines set out to make Wikipedia work. Since most Ash tree owners search "Emerald Ash Borer" first instead of EAB infestation, EAB outbreak or even under Ash tree, the technical bug info only format found here as of 2013 should be the one relegated to using another title like "Emerald Ash Borer, specific borer only info" or something else.CHICAGOCONCERTMAN (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC) By Scottie Ash Seed

I'm not much of a writer, but I certainly feel this article pieces-parts. Maybe a timeline? Not sure how to express information without making this sound like a blog, either. Example, today the Dayton Daily News reported a borer between Dayton and Cincinnati. As far as I know, it being the one furthest south in Ohio. --Kjmoran 19:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Native Habitat[edit]

Is there any information about this insect in its native habitat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an error: "The larvae are approximately 1 mm long and .6 in (15 mm) in diameter". Should this be "The larvae are approximately .6 in (15 mm) long and 1 mm in diameter"? Seuraza (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

15 mm length for larvae may be an approximate average, but realistically they often do grow up to one inch or 30 mm long. From the ones I have personally seen, I would suggest 15 mm is a little on small size unless only partially grown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Out of date[edit]

I am not an expert on this topic - but a quck check of readily available online sources shows the following claims in this articel are so out of date to be false:

  • It has spread to seven states (more than 7)
  • It has killed at least 25 million (too low)
  • The U.S. Department of Agriculture is attempting to exterminate all of these beetles on the continent, and has taken the unusual measure of destroying every ash tree within a half-mile (800 m) radius of known infested trees (not any more)

- Davodd (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC) These articles state that they can fly SUSTAINED distances of 3 miles and can fly up to 6 miles when flown to exhaustion. This is often mis-stated as most sources say .5 to 1 mile annually. Saltcedar (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Info on the Emerald Ash Borer can be found at, Canadian Food Inspection Agency —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


There is at least one ad from circulating the Internet regarding this insect. Would someone with some time update the page? Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 00:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC) web page is not an "Ad" and it is from United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service basically trying to get people to promise not to move firewood.CHICAGOCONCERTMAN (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


The emerald ash borer page should be mostly about the borer, its biology, etc. This page is more about an infestation in the US and Canada, rather than the borer itself. Either the infestation info should be restricted to a specific section on the topic, or this should be moved out of the article into a new article. -- cmhTC 02:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, move the detailed info about the infestation to a new article about the event, and turn the "emerald ash borer" article into a biological species article. -- BlueCanoe (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Globalize & Split boxes have been added to the page. This needs to be a biological species article. Riesling (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
We have had a problem with both this article and the imidicloprid article because an editor has used both articles to promote his business. I spent a fair amount of time on both articles but have pretty much given up on this one because I have rec'd no support. In fact, it was the only time I've been banned...and had my roll back function removed to boot. Gandydancer (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
By the way, that editor is "Treeguy..." and Tcpro" plus at about four other alternate personalities. Gandydancer (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, although the Emerald Ash Borer was only named after the infestation in North America. Before that the insect had no common name, and was known only as Agrilus planipennis. Therefore you may have difficulty finding a lot of material about it before the infestation in North America if searching using the common name of Emerald Ash Borer.

It is native to Eastern Asia, and nobody in North America could initially identify it. It is found in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Mongolia and the Eastern parts of Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

2012 updates[edit]

I'm adding info to a number of sections. I have the information correct, but my writing flow can be improved. I also need more citations which I will get up. Please feel free to edit what i wrote to say it betterTreeguyenvironmentalist (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

None of these new additions are sourced nor are they written in an encyclopedic manner. I am deleting them. Gandydancer (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I put back much of my original information with a better more encyclopedic writing manner and added sources that collaborate. If you do not like the writing please edit with the proper manner as you refer to. But do not erase as this is important information that needs to get out. This is the single most destructive tree disease in history.Tcpro52 (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ash borer in connecticut[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Out of date? American focused?[edit]

There is a lot to be said about the EAB, and this article attempts to capture some of it.

One comment was it is out of date, and unfortunately most of the information on the Internet about the EAB is out of date. I just returned from an ISA Ontario Annual conference in Niagara Falls, and one of the educational sessions was on the EAB. The ISA ( International Society of Aboriculture ) International Conference is in Toronto this year, and another whole day session will focus on the EAB.

One reader pointed to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and the data and information there is dated as well! Even their map is several years old and they admit it. The fact is we are learning so much about the EAB that what is 5 years old is likely at least partially wrong, and 5 years from now what we are telling people will be wrong again!

But how does one keep up, and the most current information is not even available to the public in timely manner. Even most arborists do not have it, partially because they do not take the necessary time or spend the necessary money to get it. Many as an example are still telling people that removal is the only option, or most cost effective. We used to think so, yet now that the real costs and benefits are now known, and better understood we now know that in many cases treatment is more cost effective, assuming all is factored in. Many are unaware of the increased serious health related issues (respiratory and cardiovascular ) in areas where trees were all removed, as reported in peer reviewed article in The American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

It is also very American focused, although it states North America. The principal treatment in Canada is TreeAzin by BioForest, although a couple of others are now becoming available. I do not intend to promote a product, simply stating the pesticide approval is much more rigorous in Canada, and many pesticides in use in America are not approved in Canada. The article focuses on those widely available in America only, yet states itself to be North American content. Public Education is necessary! Do not wait, by the time you realize your tree is infected it "will" be too late to save it. Because the EAB destroys the vascular system of the ash tree, it is important to treat early.

Another comments on cutting down trees, in Canada we never did that, and it is not performed anywhere now other than when a municipality chooses that as their strategy for dealing with the pending infestation. Also noting travel, the biggest method of travel is as a hitchhiker, we move it around. Naturally it would move quite slowly, but by tranortimg infected wood we can move it several dozen or hundreds of miles in a single season. The most important area here is to control human transport, the natural movement is very small compared to what we do in helping the translocation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Good software exists for municipalities now to perform cost benefit analysis, but many still struggle as they are run by engineers and architects who do not understand trees as anything other than a liability, and lack the knowledge or understanding of benefits. Benefits to air, benefits to storm water run off, etc. the cost to the municipality will far exceed that of removal and replacement, as some are now finding out.

Yes I am an ISA Certified Arborist, an iSA Certified Tree Risk Assessor, a Consulting Arborist, a licensed EAB treatment professional and soon writing my Master Arborist exam. Does that make me an expert, I think not. There are few experts in this area as we are learning so much so fast.

Having said that I am writing a white paper on the EAB, which will be peer reviewed, so do have some understanding of the topic.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, history will record how misinformation was part of this event. That's why myself and others supplying factual proven information regarding this WIKI subjectCHICAGOCONCERTMAN (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Complex and confusing because it is 2 different articles smashed together[edit]

I came to take a look at this topic because of this article: What a mess! The article's name suggests it is about a particular insect, but instead nearly the entire article is about US infestation of trees by the insect.

Somebody has already suggested dividing the article --very sensible idea. I looked for examples elsewhere and found that "Bedbug" is an article that talks about bedbugs themselves. while "Bed bug infestation" is a separate article and "Bed bug control techniques" is another. That is what somebody should do with this article. Signed, KerrMudgeonMT

OK hearing no objection, I split the confusing articles up, creating a new article Emerald ash borer infestation and removing the non-biology-about-the-damn-species info from this one. Let the talkback if any commence. Signed, KerrMudgeonMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by KerrMudgeonMT (talkcontribs) 01:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I've been questioning the decision to split the article for awhile now. The main issue is that the infestation page is really just a mishmash of bloated information that really should be summarized or cut. It should be quite feasible to parse that article down in integrate it into this one. When it comes to invasive insect species, wikipedia articles are not split up into a biology and separate invasion article ( With that it would make more sense to keep everything as a single article, but keep it concise. I'm going to try to work up a sandbox article when I have time for folks to look at, but I thought I'd get folks thoughts on this while I put things together Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


I'm sorry, I came here to find out about a bug, but the bulk of this article reads like a PR pamphlet for a website called It is certainly not encylopedic in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC) is learned info from official governmental and state university sources, not a pamphlet representing private products.CHICAGOCONCERTMAN (talk) 07:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources about insect specifically[edit]

Here are some sources specifically (more or less) about the insect and not the infestation:

Chris857 (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


It would be very useful if the photo indicated the size of this adult insect in centimeters / millimeters. I saw a bug like this, but did not know if it was the Emerald ash borer or not due to size uncertainty. Oldspammer (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits by nbabb2[edit]

I am a stundet at Louisiana State University enrolled in a semester long course whose mission is to educate students on the consequences of natural disturbances on society and the ecosystem. Our cumulative project is making substantial edits to an already existing page. In this case, I have heavily researched the EAB and included various references for this already existing page. I have added sections on how the eab reacted to the polar vortex of 2014, its impact on economies and ecosystems, and edited minor problems found in the already existing page.Nbabb2 (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Before making edits, I would suggest looking over some of the discussion about how the article was split between the actual species and the North America infestation. Basically, there was so much information specifically for North America that it was making the article too bulky. If you look at the EAB infestation page, you'll see why that became an issue as it really is just a hodgepodge of information (
I will forewarn you that this may be a difficult page for a student to work on, although I definitely am not discouraging working in improving the page at all. I research EAB and the set up of these pages has been bothering me as well. Personally I think the two pages should be merged back together again as no other insect page is set up like this (e.g., gypsy moth), but the information needs to be kept concise and relevant to a general reader. This page suffered from too much bloated information and current events like the polar vortex section you added (in that case I'd suggest discussing the cold tolerance of EAB instead of focusing on the polar vortex). The main focus of this page should be on the species itself and information pertinent to a general reader instead of just listing as much information as possible. If that general guideline is adhered to, we should be able to keep the article from degenerating again. Here's a general outline I've been working on for a merged page, but I haven't had the time to work on edits for some time now: Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Merge Emerald ash borer infestation to this page[edit]

Awhile back, this page was split into the current page and the Emerald ash borer infestation. This mainly appeared to be due to too much content based on EAB in North America. However, most of the information in the infestation page either could be made much more concise, or is not relevant for Wikipedia readers. Honestly, the pages on EAB here seem to need a good dose of WP:ISNOT, namely in that the EAB pages are not meant to list as many details as possible, but present a clear summary for readers, and if they want more in-depth information they can follow the references. Most of the content explosion seemed to be from describing where EAB has been found in North America and how it's managed. A lot of that information can be summarized. That and the infestation page honestly looks like a mishmash of different loose topics, and those that are relevant seem too stand alone when not in the context of the main EAB page. I've cut a lot of information out of that page already, but there just doesn't seem to be a coherent topic that really makes it stand out as a separate article when you get into the relevant details. I think there's still a lot of information that should be cut from the infestation page or sections that could be reduced to a single sentence, but I think decisions on those edits would be more productive if we had them all under the context of a single page with the overall goal of concisely describing what emerald ash borer is and how it is of interest (while avoiding a lot of the how-to information that's snuck in).

With that I'm proposing a merge of the two pages. We should be able to have an article that first discusses relevant biology in general in the first sections, and then leading into a subsection of EAB in North America (substantially parsed down of course). Two main reasons I see for this action are:

1. Other invasive insect pages do not take the approach of splitting the general biology and invasive/spread sections into different pages. See: The bed bug pages were unique because of medical terms, biology topics, etc. that had clearly defined boundaries, but that does not seem to apply here.

2. The splitting has resulted in a content fork WP:CFORK where information was shunted out of this page that really should have been either deleted or made more concise. I completely understand the thought of removing the tough to deal with information from this page, but keeping all the material manageable on one page should be quite doable. I did a rough merged draft of what I'd envision a concise page should look like we do merge here: Keep in mind it's primarily an outline at this point, as I mainly wanted to see if other editors thought this was a good approach for a doing the merge.

If folks agree that a merge would be a worthwhile option to pursue, I can just move the content from the infestation page to this page under the the North America section temporarily so we have a record of what content was in both pages, and then work the entire page down to sections and relevant information similar to my sandbox. That way we can have a record of both the merge and individual edits to work on. That way we can save the discussion of actual content for another day. I think it's worth a shot since I'm willing to put time into the merge right now, and we should be able to stick to single page in the future if we stick to the guideline that we keep the page concise.Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm kind of neutral on this. Both the EAB and EAB infestation pages do need a lot of work, including reducing the overlap between the two. At the same time, I don't have a problem with the principle of there being two pages. The spread of EAB in North America is very much noteworthy, and it would make sense to separate the topic as a new page if it takes up too much space on the main page. I guess to me the right path would be to clean up both the articles and then, if there is not enough material to justify splitting the two, to merge them together. Tdslk (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
My opinions are that 1) the North America infestation has enough potential material for an article that it would detract from/overwhelm an article on the species and 2) there seems to be rather less biological information available on the insect itself, including native habitat, than I would expect. Either way, both need a lot of cleanup, and preferably from someone familiar with writing about species or insects. Chris857 (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Chris857, the main reason I starting thinking about the merge was that the infestation largely has a lot of information that can either be deleted or made to be much more concise. There is a lot of potential information, but our job as editors is to summarize that information well. I recently cut the infestation page down from 27k words to 17k words, and I'm seeing a lot of information that could be summarized in a single line or use more reliance of sources for more tangential information. As an entomologist who worked with EAB, I look at the infestation page and don't see anything there that can't be concisely summarized. However, I don't think I could concisely summarize the page into a coherent standalone page. That's the issue I see with the original split. I'll see what I can do on the infestation page in the meantime though and try to parse it down to something that could be transferred over if we do move towards a merge. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Chris857, this is not the scientific page regarding the Agrilus planipennis, but the "Infestation event" of Americanized version called EAB, and this continents ongoing control methods of said Asian invesive. Wiki needs an "Infestation" fork because everything on this page has been deleted from main EAB one. Now with this warning "article contains instructions, advice, or how-to content" tag, Wiki-bots want nothing covering details of insecticide applications on this page because it sounds like a How to use product. Details regarding whats involved for each application method to succeed documents technical factual details not even included within insecticides official instruction page, but scientifically observed from field studies. Not "How to", but "What it takes" to control infestation. We are documenting factual history produced from official reference sources in order for future generations to comprehend this Wiki subject. My fear is public searching for EAB info will never see this "Infestation" page, but only main Emerald Ash Borer Wiki. I agree it would be much tidier to keep details such as insecticides to their respective Wikipedia pages, and we will do our best to produce within Wiki guidelines. But don't just erase our referenced facts. Anyone for an "Interaction of EAB/Ash" for a Wiki page?CHICAGOCONCERTMAN (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

After editing both pages a bit, I think it's time to revive the idea. I've parsed down a lot of redundant info on the infestation page, and removed most references on this page to EAB as an invasive or in North America. At this point we can see there's not a whole lot of information on this page which is largely because most research on it is done in North America, so most info is currently over at the infestation page. After the cleanup, a merge looks pretty straightforward and seems like it would fit the material together into a good coherent article without any disjointing. Keeping them separate also seems to lead to confusion with some editors adding North American/invasive info to the species page rather than the infestation page. With all that in mind, I put together a version of what a merge would look like if I went ahead with it right now:

Before the original split, this page was around 40k bytes, while this proposed one is at 29k. That seems like a manageable size for a reader now. There is a lot of information on this topic, so we will need to be careful about not adding information that's not pertinent to a general reader (e.g. detailed insecticide info that someone could find in the sources if they really wanted to know it), or wordy information that could be easily said in a few words or sentence. There are some additional improvements I'd like to make (still thinking about what to do with the Polar Vortex content), but for now are we at a good point to do a merge and make any future edits under a single article? Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Seeing no comments yet, I decided to go ahead with the merge. Let's see what we can do to work up the page from a single article with conciseity in mind. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)



That all happened quite a while ago now, but I merged them after seeing no opposition on either page to it. Everything was more or less consolidated to be more concise to take care of the issues that apparently prompted the split in the first place. The problem material before the split just got shunted over the to infestation page, so now that's all reintegrated now to be a manageable size for a reader. Also, try not to type with caps lock on as it makes it appear as if you are yelling. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
sounds like the original split page was as WP:POVFORK which is not allowed. Nice to move to merge it back. Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Information on local infestations[edit]

I see CHICAGOCONCERTMAN added a section on local infestations and removed it. [1] I think this was a good move to remove the section, but I just wanted to give a little info on where such info should probably go. Generally, having a list of events (first finds in this case) is feasible when you only have a few notable occurrences for an article. However, we're at the point now where we could potentially list 20+ locations (1 for each state/province) or potentially even more. At that point, any town with a find could also potentially be justified in such a list. We'd definitely be reaching a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list even just including the first find for each state, so that's why it would be best to avoid such a section. That's also why I didn't include state names since we'd have so many to list here too. How this can be approached though is to use the references to our advantage. We currently use [2] to describe which states have EAB without actually listing them in the Range section. Similarly, we have this map used as well. [3] The red dots show the first county level detection, so that's probably about as fine tuned as we want to get here. If we find a similar source that documents those finds in text, that would be a good source to add to the Range section. We wouldn't want to add individual sources for each find though because that's just going to be way too many references. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Host-plant resistance[edit]

This is one area I would usually like to write up a section in herbivorous pest articles. From what I've seen in reviews so far, some Chinese species may have resistance, and folks are working on figuring it out and breeding for resistance in North America. That isn't enough for its own section yet, but it could be if more developments come up in the field. I don't envision anything really happening now, but I'm just putting this here as a reminder in case anyone comes upon new developments in the area. Right now we just mention resistance here [4], but if things move beyond the "we're working on it" stage, it'd be good to give it more focus. For now though, probably too crystal bally to give it more prominence. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

WikiPrtoject Insects really needs to go. Can we invite user @Wilhemina Will:? I tried to pursue her to join the project, but no avail.--Mishae (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 12:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Happy to take on this review. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  1. The lead feels a little short- ideally, it should summarize everything else in the article.
  2. There does seem to be a moderate US focus, which feels like undue weight or perhaps recentism. If anything, I would have thought the focus should be on the native range. For example, the distribution section has one sentence on the "natural" range, one sentence on invasion generally and three on the US specifically. In addition, you have lots of information about host ash species in North America, but very little about elsewhere in the world, and all I know about "the specialized predators and parasitoids that suppressed EAB populations in Asia" is that many of them "were not present in North America."
  3. There's no description section. The taxonomic information is also a little light. Compare to Aleeta curvicosta and Thopha saccata, for example; both were fairly recently promoted to FA, and, in both, the description section and the taxonomy sections are among the longest sections.
  4. You've got a lot of stuff dropped into "life cycle" that I don't really think belongs there. As above, I'd recommend splitting off the description details into their own section and expanding it, while the details about the invasiveness probably belong in the distribution section. Much of the rest probably belongs in a "human interactions" section.
  5. The focus of the article seems to be very much on the EAB as a pest, and on when they do and do not cause damage to ash trees, rather than on EAB as a species of insect (eg "but cause little defoliation in the process" and "only a sporadic pest on native trees as population densities typically do not reach levels lethal to healthy trees"). I'm certainly not saying that the pest angle should be neglected, but surely the focus should more be on what the insect is and what it does, rather than on commercial interests? The pest angle should probably be covered primarily in a dedicated section.
  6. "Immature larvae can overwinter in their larval gallery, but can require an additional summer of feeding before emerging as adults the following spring." So if they spend one winter, they can need to spend two?
  7. Phrases like "the agencies running the program know that proper quarantine measure must be instituted" and "Insecticides are typically only recommended" don't come across as particularly neutral.
  8. At a glance, the sources generally look good. It's probably better not to abbreviate journal names, there are a few small inconsistencies and it's probably not necessary to add accessdates to the journal citations, but these are not a big deal at GAC. Is definitely reliable?
  9. The source links on File:Agrilus planipennis mating.png and File:Ventral adult eab.jpg are dead.

I think that the point of view issue (specifically, the focus on EAB-as-US-invader and EAB-as-pest) is a big problem. This, combined with the need to expand on key information (the physical description being the obvious example) and the desirability of a moderate restructuring suggests to me that this is not yet ready for GA status. I'm happy to leave the review open for a time if you think these are things you can fix fairly quickly. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review J Milburn. I'll address the various points with new edits and summarize more here when I'm wrapped up. These things can be fixed quickly or at least addressed as best we can, so I can respond to this all tomorrow. I should point out though that the North American centric view is because that's where most of the information has been gathered. Prior to the introduction, the literature could basically be summarized as "A green wood-boring beetle that we otherwise don't know much about that rarely shows up in dying ash." Hopefully the correct sectioning helps just a little bit, but I have a few edits I'm thinking of that can help address that question. More to come tomorrow. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
J Milburn, another set of eyes really did help here, so thank you for that. I went and numbered your comments instead of bullets to sync my comments up a little easier. Hopefully the edits and comments below address your various comments:
  1. I modified the lead to concisely summarize the various concepts in each section.
    It still feels a little short. I'm not sure the final sentence makes sense. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    Could you be a bit more specific here about what's not making sense? It's summarizing the various sections at the end of the article dealing with various management tactics for EAB (management is mostly done by government agencies). Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. In this case, the large amount of attention on EAB in a North American context is what NPOV calls for because that's how the sources describe it. A lot of the information is over 5 years old, so it's difficult to see recentism here. Like many invasive species, there was little information discussed in sources about EAB before it became invasive. Sources started discussing it more as it became a problem, which is a real-world bias in sources (rather than an internal Wikipedia/editor bias), so we tend to reflect according to NPOV since that's what the sources give weight to. In the native range, sources could essentially be summarized into a stub saying, "EAB is a wood-boring beetle that can rarely be found in dying ash trees." because no one paid attention to it. Even though this current version does try to pull away as much as possible from the North American focus, that's a real world bias we'll probably always be seeing in this topic unless EAB becomes pandemic. There is one source discussing the biology in China that is currently cited (mainly that EAB is now a problem in China on North American species brought over there). It's a primary study though, so we can't use that source too much. The source gets some mention in the hosts section, but I added a small summary addressing this here. There's a lot that just isn't known or commented on for decades to start summarizing about other locations.
    The reason I mentioned recentism is that the species has been known for over a century, but most of the article seems to focus on something that has only been happening for a few decades. It may not have been the right word- the weighting issue is the real worry. However, the fact you have a good, peer reviewed article saying that there was little known about the species is great- I'd include that factoid in the lead, and possibly elsewhere, rather than just in the invasive species section. This justifies the article's focus. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    I added some explanation to the lead. Unless something comes up where the biology is very different in Asia, I'm not really seeing additional places to mention the attention gap at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Some of the description related to life-history traits is already in the life cycle section where it has a better fit for more general information. I added some defining characters for actually identifying the species in the identification section. I'd actually consider the FA descriptions you listed too technical for an encyclopedic audience, so this is probably about as in-depth as I'd want to go in terms of general description [5].
    I'm not necessarily asking for that degree of detail (though I wouldn't be opposed to it). I'd certainly want to see a non-technical field-guide level description, and I do feel that it should be in its own section. Description details, too, are surely a nice way to balance information about the beetle-qua-beetle with beetle-qua-pest. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    In general, what kind of information do you see lacking for a description that isn't in the life cycle section? I have a preference for keeping descriptive details of each stage of the life cycle in the section for continuity rather than having separate life cycle and description sections that can become a bit redundant. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Having those sections appear in the life cycle section was unintended (missed an edit awhile back that changed the sectioning). The current version should appear less disjointed and help with separate the North American focus as originally intended. The content mostly integrates in pretty well under the "As an invasive species" section, so a human interactions section would be difficult to pull off since the human interactions and ecological concepts are closely tied (e.g., biological control and releases). For background, the invasive species section essentially was split off as its own article at one point (with essentially nothing here). It's a huge chunk of the EAB story, and some editors in the past did not like seeing that be some prominent on the page. After some time though, this is the best integration we've come up with to have a complete article on the topic.
    I can see the sense in having separate articles- I seem to remember that we do this with some fungal pathogens. One article about the fungus, one article about the "disease". The split now makes a lot more sense to me. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    Many times those splits are problematic because insects are so closely tied to their pest status and vice versa. When we split articles, the "disease" article often just repeats what's on the species article, so there's next to nothing unique on the species article. If you want to comment on the species article about ecology, you're almost always going to be butting heads with the other article. That happened here, which is why this article was merged back again. When it comes to invasive species, the focus in sources will change compared to beneficial insects or more general interest species. If you want to see an example of a GA invasive insect article, check out Sirex woodwasp. It does not have quite the amount of attention EAB does on treatments in sources because of different environments, but much of the focus relating to ecology (not just human interactions) goes back to the pest status in some way. It's not quite as a huge of a problem as EAB in terms of invasiveness, but it's a pretty parallel example for this topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Similar to the North American focus, pest status is also the focus of most sources relating to this species. As an invasive species, it is not only a pest in terms of commercial interests (I'd argue the commercial side is minor here, but that's just me). It's a problem ecologically too, as are most invasives, which is outlined throughout the article. In the content you mention, there is no mention of commercial interests, just what the insect is doing at a particular life stage. If we say it's eating leaves then, we should reflect what sources say and say it's not a detriment to the tree in that case. If there's a plant-insect interaction going on, that question is almost always going to come up in terms of weight.
    It's not just commercial interests that I'm worried about; I don't want to see the view of the beetle as a pest or a problem reinforced in Wikipedia's neutral voice. We should describe that others have called it a pest and what they have done about it. (This is a general comment- I'm not thinking of any comment in particular.) Josh Milburn (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    I'm a bit concerned we're stepping outside the bounds of NPOV or even getting into WP:OR with this concern. We especially assign weight according to secondary sources, and review articles are about as high as we can go there. If they choose to focus on certain areas and neglect others for whatever reason, we do the same here under NPOV. Since the insect does not get as much attention in its native range or as a non-pest, we aren't here to right that wrong (I wish there was more too), but just describe what has been found in reliable sources. It's definitely a real-world concern for scientists when we have gaps in research, but that's a different concern than NPOV and editors writing an article in this context. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Correct. I don't think anyone is going to be confused by thinking time traveling is going on, but I tried tightening up the language a bit [6].
  7. Fixed the agencies piece. I'm not seeing how the insecticides are recommended piece is not neutral though. We did have a problem in the past in this article with people apparently selling insecticides trying to push products, but this piece of content is a more measured response from researchers. I added an additional reference here as the sentence was leading into the reference cited in the next sentence.[7]
    WP:NOT#HOWTO also springs to mind with "Insecticides are typically only recommended". The tone doesn't feel quite right. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    I shuffled things around here a little bit that should help tone. I should say the part you quoted was actually meant to address WP:NOT#HOWTO since the statement often comes up in literature as a sort of caution against do it yourself folks just going out and applying insects randomly or companies trying to sell insecticides as "insurance". These are broad recommendations from academic experts to city and local government in addition to homeowners, and that is important context for how they are intended to be used rather than how to use them. It's nuanced, but a distinction that sources make from an academic perspective. If you would like to see some of the main not-how-to issues we've dealt with in the past, here's one for context [8] Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  8. Cleaned up the various references. I did a little digging on the The Don't Move Firewood campaign. I assumed it was run by the USDA-Forest Service, but it's actual by a non-government organization, the Nature Conservancy. Still not a big deal, but I removed the source since it wasn't actually adding anything unique.
  9. Updated the url on the first image , changed out the second since it wasn't really tied to content to focus more on the description of the species.
Let me know if you have any additional comments or questions. I agree that there is a lot of focus on North America / pest status, but since that's more of a real-world bias, that's unfortunately what we're left with when following NPOV (i.e. reflecting what the sources focus on rather than what we want to see). I don't believe that aspect disqualifies the article from GA status per se, so I'm happy to chat if we need to dig into that topic more or make some smaller tweaks with this in mind. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the fixes you've made so far and the detailed response here. I'll take another look through the article in the coming days. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I've offered some initial replies- I'll have a good look through the article again in the next few days. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick comment on the newly added lifecycle images- your licensing is all wrong. The website claims that they are released under CC-by-NC-3.0-US, which is not a Commons-friendly license. There's no indication that they're released under CC-by-2.5, which is what you've uploaded them under. If they are USDA works, they should be tagged with Commons:Template:PD-USGov-USDA, but we'd need to be sure. (Also, you can download much higher resolution versions of them.) Josh Milburn (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

That's really odd considering they were all uploaded as under the 3.0 option. Good catch on the non-commercial ones though, I'm so used to public images (USDA, etc.) and academic use that I forgot Wikipedia doesn't like non-commerical. I'll have to tackle this when I'm back after the weekend, so I just deleted the non-commerical images for now and updated the others. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Josh Milburn, I addressed the remaining points. Sorry for the delay (work got a little hectic this week), but I'll be able to respond in the next few days with no problem. I'll be adding in more pictures from appropriate sources for the life stages later today. Thanks again. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Great- I'll have another good look through in the coming days. (By the way, if you're not confident about the licensing of the images you've removed from the article, can I recommend you nominate them for deletion on Commons?) Josh Milburn (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Already done. I technically could claim they are public government works since they say they are produced in affiliation with the Forest Service, etc., but I figured I'd be on the safe side since the person specifically released them as non-commercial. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Closing review[edit]

I am going to close this review at this time; the article seems surprisingly unstable, which has led to me protecting the page. Some of my concerns from above remain. For example, I would recommend thinking again about a more typical structure for the page so that there is a good focus on the species itself. The article is looking a lot better, and I'm sad I won't see the review through to the end, but I do not think that now is the right time for a review. I encourage you to renominate once issues have been resolved, and, depending on other commitments, I may well be able to take up the review again myself. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Non-GAC discussion moved to Talk:Emerald ash borer by Josh Milburn (talk) at 13:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Page protected[edit]

I have protected this page for 24 hours. Whatever previous disagreements users may have had, there does seem to plausibly be a legitimate disagreement about this image issue; the edit warring is not acceptable. This protection does not endorse the current version of the page in any way- at this time, I have no opinion on which version is preferable. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The disruptive editing is currently being discussed at ANI: There's not a legitimate disagreement with that in mind. Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained image[edit]

I don't know if this is an appropriate place to comment, but the image of a purple trap in section Monitoring and Management led me to wonder what is the significance of the colour, and if it is, in fact significant, as there is no direct reference to it in the adjoining text. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It's better to comment directly on the article talk page (it looks like this was posted to the GA review), but no worries. The source following discussion of the traps in the text mentions a bit more, and the text already says that certain colors are attractive. I fleshed out the details on color a bit more. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of extraneous images[edit]

There are three photos of the same insect, which is redundant and unnecessary. I've removed two of them. I have also removed an extraneous image of a damaged elm, there is no need for two photos of the same tree. GregJackP Boomer! 05:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do not make things up and purposely vandalize the page as part of a content dispute on an entirely unrelated page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
IMO the photos were all helpful and should be kept in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I would agree. The spread wing image and picture from below illustrates the body structure underneath the wings. The tree damage picture clearly illustrates the extent of damage to the tree beyond the "D-holes" picture more so than the text conveys (especially to a layman such as myself). These are three very relevant public domain images that should be in the article. (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)