Talk:Beech bark disease

message: I was evaluating this article the other day and I noted a number of spots that could use improvement. Many of the issues involved confusing word choice or unclear grammar. I will chronologically state what I noticed. 
The very first paragraph looked good. Under the History and distribution section I believe it could be helpful to specify scale insect in the sentence "At first, it was believed that the insect was the main cause of the disease.". Even though the first section of the page stated that it is a scale insect, I think it is good to reinforce that. In the following sentence I also believe it should be written "...the Neonectria fungus was..." for clarity's sake. 
Also in this paragraph, there are two sentences that are confusing when next to each other due to their wording. The first of the two sentences is "The first outbreak of beech bark disease in North America appeared in American Beech (Fagus grandifolia) in Nova Scotia around 1920." One sentence later is written "In 1929, the first case of beech bark disease was found in the United States in Massachusetts." For those who are not reading carefully and skip over the word "North", America and the United States are often interchangeable, so rewording the sentence to emphasize United States as separate could be helpful. I believe the paragraph would read better if the second sentence I mentioned was worded: "In the United States, the first case of beech bark disease was found in Massachusetts in 1929." Or "The first case of beech bark disease in the United States was found in Massachusetts in 1929." Both of these wordings emphasize the contrast between the United States and North America. 
In the section "The destructive duo", I feel there should be a citation at the end of "There are no male beech scale insects and the female insects reproduce parthenogenetically." A piece of information this specific seems like it should have a reference source. My next point is in the sentence: "The first-stage nymphs (also known as crawlers) begin to hatch in late summer and continue until early winter." While I know what the writer meant, it sounds like they are saying it takes a first-stage nymph from late summer until early winter to get out of its egg. In the discussion of the fungi involved in the disease, the writer wrote " One type of spore that is produced is perithecia." However, perithecia are not actually spores; they are the spore-bearing structures of the fungus, as is explained in the following sentences. It is probably best to simply delete this sentence. 
Under Signs and symptoms, the first paragraph is technically divided into two sections. First it discusses signs of a scale insect infestation. The second half of the paragraph explains signs of the fungal infection, however this division is not readily apparent. Rewording the first sentence, to say "The first visible sign of a beech scale insect infestation is a woolly, white, waxy covering that the insect secretes.", more clearly introduces what the paragraph is discussing. 
I find the second sentence of the second paragraph grammatically odd: "Symptoms affecting the foliage are yellowing, becoming small and sparse, and remaining on the tree during the summer time.". I am not entirely sure how to fix this sentence because I am not sure what the writer meant by "[the leaves remain] on the tree during summer time.". Having leaves is the summer is not an unusual attribute for a tree. Perhaps something along the lines of "Foliage may become small, sparse and yellowed." would work better? Just for the sake of the paragraph's flow, in the second to last sentence it would be more concise to start the sentence with "noticeable". Then it would read: "Noticeable symptoms on the bole are...". 
The final technical issue I wish to point out involves the word choice "Controls" in the heading of the last section. Personally the word "controls" makes me think of experimental controlled variables which is not what this section is about. "Management" or "Management strategies" might be a more suitable heading. There is also a minor typo in this paragraph; There is no space between the second and third sentences.
There are a few small facts missing from this article that I think would be worthwhile to include. First, it is good to know that the scale insect facilitating the disease in North America, C. fagisuga, is actually invasive,Cale, Jonathan A., Stephen A. Teale, Mariann T. Johnston, Gregory L. Boyer, Katherine A.    Perri, and John D. Castello. “New Ecological and Physiological Dimensions of Beech Bark Disease Development in Aftermath Forests.” Forest Ecology and Management 336 (2015): 99–108. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2014.10.019. which is why the disease's prevalence has increased since it was first documented. This is discussed in the paper "New ecological and physiological dimensions of beech bark disease development in aftermath forests" by Jonathan A. Cale et al., 2015. The authors of this same paper also concluded that there is a second type of scale insect that facilitates beech bark disease in North America. That is the non-host-specific species, Xylococculus betulae. This could be worth mentioning in the article. 
Thank you for reading!
Mv663012 (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Evaluation 

message: Thank you for writing this article. I wish the photos were larger, especially those of the fungus fruiting bodies and scale insect adults and nymph. Interested readers can go to one of the reference sites for better photography, but Wikipedia pages with good photos are a lot more fun to read than those without.Ziply123 (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos are too small