User:Cara.begley/Coccinella septempunctata/AshleyMasse Peer Review

The flow of the first sentence could be improved. I would also move the explanation of the scientific name closer to the scientific name. There should be a citation after the sentence with the explanation of the scientific name...unless that was knowledge you already had.

For example:

Coccinella septempunctata is known as the seven-spot lady bird in the U.K. and the seven-spot ladybug or C-7 in North America. Its elytra are a red colour and each punctuated with three black spots with one further spot being spread over the junction of the two elytra. This makes a total of seven spots, from which the species derives both its common and scientific names (from the Latin septem = "seven" and punctus = "spot"). It is a carnivorous beetle native to the old world and present in Europe (where it is the most common ladybird), Central and Eastern Asia, and other regions with a temperate climate.

You could split the header into two headers, one for ecology and one for biology. You seem to talk about both under the one header, biology. What does "overwinter" mean? Is it a synonym for hibernate? This may not be clear to readers. I would rearrange the sentences to improve flow.

For example:

Ecology

C. septempunctata has a broad ecological range determined by the presence of its food source. They eat aphids, they also feed on Thysanoptera, Aleyrodidae, on the larvae of Psyllidae and Cicadellidae, and on eggs and larvae of some beetles and butterflies. This diet, and thus the ladybugs, can be found amongst other biotopes, meadows, fields, Pontic–Caspian steppe, parkland, gardens, Western European broadleaf forests and mixed forests. Adults overwinter in ground litter in parks, gardens and forest edges and under tree bark and rocks. In the United Kingdom, there are fears that the seven-spot ladybird is being out competed for food by the harlequin ladybird.

Biology

An adult seven-spot ladybird may reach a body length of 7.6–12.7 mm (0.3–0.5 in). Their distinctive spots and conspicuous colors warn of their toxicity, making them unappealing to predators. The species can secrete a fluid from joints in their legs which gives them a foul taste. A threatened ladybird may both play dead and secrete the unappetizing substance to protect itself. The seven-spot ladybird synthesizes the toxic alkaloids, N-oxide coccinelline and its free base precoccinelline; depending on sex and diet, the spot size and coloration can provide some indication of how toxic the individual insect is to potential predators.

Colors and unappetizing were spelled wrong. I would scrap the distribution section, it bugs me..haha get it?... how you talk about where the ladybug lives in the introduction and then list a bunch of places after the concept had already talked about. If you want to keep the detail, you can find a way to incorporate that information into the introduction.

For the interactions with humans section, I would split the sub headers into biological control introductions, then create a new sub header for infestations, and then in culture has its own heading.

There is a good use of the neutral tone. Some sentences could be rearranged and combined/split to create better flow. There are no claims or over represented viewpoints. It is a very informing article with no use of persuasion.

All sources look like peer reviewed articles, books, or other credible publications. Make sure there is a citation after every informative thing you say. There was one instance where you didn't have a citation after talking about biotopes.

To create smoother flow I suggest rearranging sentences around like I gave examples for above. The biology header could be split up into an ecology and biology header and the sub headers, biological control introductions and infestations could be separated.

There is one picture where it gives a fact instead of a description of the picture, I would change it to say "Coccinella septempunctata feeding on pollen". The mating and larva picture could also use a more detailed description that includes the name of the ladybug.

There are changes that can be made to improve the sentence structure of the article. Otherwise it is very informative and the information given is all specific to this species of ladybug. The language used is clear with only a few spelling errors.

Peer review Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: Lead Guiding questions: Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Content Guiding questions: Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Tone and Balance Guiding questions: Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Sources and References Guiding questions: Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work? Organization Guiding questions: Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Overall impressions Guiding questions: Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? What are the strengths of the content added? How can the content added be improved? Examples of good feedback A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. Peer review of "Homemaking" Peer review of this article about a famous painting Additional Resources Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)

Link to draft you're reviewing

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)