User:Pmngybs/Pyrausta inornatalis/Bibliography

You will be compiling your bibliography and creating an outline of the changes you will make in this sandbox.

Bibliography

As you gather the sources for your Wikipedia contribution, think about the following:

Is the source from a reliable publication?
- Reliable publications include established newspapers, academic journals and books, textbooks, and other published sources with reputations for accuracy and fact-checking.
- Unreliable sources include blog posts and other self-published works, press releases, and social media posts.
Is the source verifiable?
- In order for a source to be considered verifiable, other editors should be able to consult the source.
Is the source independent of the subject?
- Is the source connected in any way to the subject? This is especially important when writing biographies or about organizations.
- For example, if you were writing a biography, sources like the person's webpage or personal blog would not be considered independent.
Is the source primary or secondary?
- Primary sources include first-hand accounts, autobiographies, and other original content.
- Wikipedia allows limited use of primary sources, but typically only for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, and only if they are published and verifiable without requiring specialized knowledge.
- Secondary sources should be the main basis for a biography on Wikipedia.
If you're working on a topic related to medicine or psychology, ensure that your sources follow these special guidelines.
If you're creating a new article, consider the following:
- Ensure that your topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
- In order for a topic to meet the notability requirement, you must be able to identify 2-3 sources that are reliable, verifiable, and independent of the subject you're writing about.
- Finding sufficient sources to establish notability can be especially hard when writing about people or organizations.
- Sources that are not independent of the subject might be useful additions, but don't count towards the notability requirement.
- Wikipedia has developed special guidelines for writing about living persons. Please follow these carefully.
- Wikipedia has a series of guidelines for writing about different categories of people, such as academics and artists. If you're trying to create a new entry about a living person, please look at these carefully.

If you're not sure whether a source is reliable, ask a librarian! If you have questions about Wikipedia's sourcing rules, you can use the Get Help button below to contact your Wikipedia Expert.

Get Help

Bibliography

Edit this section to compile the bibliography for your Wikipedia assignment. Add the name and/or notes about what each source covers, then use the "Cite" button to generate the citation for that source.

https://www.oregon.gov/oda/shared/Documents/Publications/IPPM/SouthernPinkMothPestAlert.pdf

This source provides valuable information on not only the physical appearance of the moth I am editing the page of, but also some information on their behavior with host plants, which include saliva and basil species. There is not a lot of information regarding their host plants, and I will continue to see if I can acquire more information on that aspect of this moth. The most useful information in this source is near the end, in the “Identification/Life stages” section, in which it gives measurements, colors, and general markers of what the imago and larva stage of this moth look like.

https://blogs.oregonstate.edu/mgmetro/2020/09/01/southern-pink-moth-pyrausta-inornatalis/

While this source does provide a lot of similar information to the one listed above, there are notable differences such as some things that can be used to mitigate the damage done by the larva of the moth. I am unsure if this is information that can be included in a Wikipedia page, but it does also describe some of the ways in which the larva feed on their host plants, so I will be including that when I do my edits.

https://www.insectidentification.org/insect-description.php?identification=Inornate-Pyrausta-Moth

This source is maybe my least valuable one, however from what I could find it does seem reputable. It provides data regarding locations in which the moth has been recorded as being seen. I am not sure how exactly the data for this is acquired but from what I could find I think it may be primarily user generated and then likely screened for verification.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2287884X22000620?via%3Dihub

One of the most useful sources I was able to find, it details very clearly what both the larval and pupae stages of the moth look like, using primarily “technical” terms. While this information may not all be useful, given I’m not sure what the complexity expected on a Wikipedia page is, there is still more general information like the coloring and appearance of the pupa. I am hoping to use the image of the pupa in this but I’m not sure I’ll be able to get in contact with any of the authors in time to acquire the right to use it.

References

Outline of proposed changes

Click on the edit button to draft your outline.

Now that you have compiled a bibliography, it's time to plan out how you'll improve your assigned article.

In this section, write up a concise outline of how the sources you've identified will add relevant information to your chosen article. Be sure to discuss what content gap your additions tackle and how these additions will improve the article's quality.

Consider other changes you'll make to the article, including possible deletions of irrelevant, outdated, or incorrect information, restructuring of the article to improve its readability or any other change you plan on making. This is your chance to really think about how your proposed additions will improve your chosen article and to vet your sources even further.

Note: This is not a draft. This is an outline/plan where you can think about how the sources you've identified will fill in a content gap.

Get Help