Talk:Trombiculidae

.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trombiculidae/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, before we go any further, the references need sorting. Many are bare urls, others lack details such as isbn, page numbers in books or article titles in journals or have strange and or inconsistent formatting. Use the cite templates if you are unsure what is needed. Some refs do not appear to be verifiably reliable sources (encyclopaedias, ask.com and non-academic sites like piedpiper and fabcats) lacking any internal primary referencing to establish their reliability.

Refs 27 and 32 are identical - use <ref name= >

I suspect that the work involved to format the references and replace the dubious ones may be too much to do in the time of this GA, especially as we haven't even started on the content; I suggest that you might like to withdraw for now and resubmit in a few weeks when the article is closer to GAN standard. jimfbleak (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second, I have been waiting for this article to be GA for a while, can't we wait at least 3 days, I promise I will get the refs fixed. Bugboy52.4 (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

List of refs with comments. In addition, there are inconsistencies in ref formatting and style jimfbleak (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• 1 OK
• 2 OK, needs formatting
• 3 No, it’s an encyclopaedia
• 4 OK, needs pages
• 5 No, FAB is a commercial site, no primary refs
• 6 bare ref
• 7 No, no evidence of why this is a reliable source
• 8 Ok
• 9 OK but missing details (authors, publisher etc}
• 10 to 12 OK apart from inconsistent style
• 13 No, it’s an encyclopaedia
• 14 If this is a book needs isbn and pages, if it’s a journal needs fmting and pages
• 15 needs fmting (don’t need to say it’s in English either)
• 16 Armax is commercial site, no primary refs
• 17 ACES looks OK, missing details (authors, publisher etc}
• 18 About.com: Chiggers Pediatric Dermatology Basics, No, you can’t use a website with no url, not reliable anyway
• 19, 20 OK
• 21 Univ of Florida apparent repeat of earlier ref, use <ref name =
• 22 as 18
• 23-26 OK apart from minor formatting
• 27 OK but missing details (, publisher etc}
• 26 Bennett - Why is this a reliable source?
• 29, 30 Ok and perfect formatting!
• 31, 32 FAB and Bennett as above, refs shouldn’t be repeated any
• 33 Commercial website – why is this reliable? It may be, just checking - Also misspelt

For those that are not reliable, try to find an alternative ref (Google Scholar might help); if no alternative ref can be found, best to remove info. jimfbleak (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

The prose needs tidying up, and there are some unreferenced sections, but nothing that can't be fixed. When you are ready to come back to this, let me know and I'll do a copy edit and fix formatting etc. before you send it to GAN again.

Removed treatment recommendation

Just removed a recommendation for a specific treatment. It was placed so as to indicate that it came from the already-cited Merck reference, but it didn't. Snezzy (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Life cycle/larva section

1st sentence says larvae are about 1.27 mm long and normally light red, but 3rd sentence says yellow to light red and about 0.17–0.21 mm. The article's opening paragraph says 0.4 mm and chrome-orange.

3rd paragraph says the bump forms as late as 24-48 hours after the bite and ends by saying the larvae remain attached to a suitable host for 3 to 5 days before dropping off. This implies they remain present for at least 24 hours after the bump forms -- probably longer. But the main 2nd paragraph says itching usually occurs after the larvae detach from the skin, and the Treatment section (1st paragraph) says they're no longer present by the time a rash is noticed.

I don't know which of these statements are correct, but someone who does should eliminate the contradictions.Therealdp (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the first contradiction, but I don't understand what you mean for the second one. It would mean that the bump forms around 24 hours after they first bite, and they stay for 3-5 days and then drop off, to which then the rash starts to itch. I don't understand where the contradiction is. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 14:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. My impression, based on too much personal experience, has been like C. Cerf's (below): The bump turns red and starts itching within a few hours after working outside and being bitten. What's more, I've never spotted a chigger, so they must have dropped off by then. Is it possible that the article's citations concern a species that's different from the ones I've encountered in TX and OH? I'm pretty sure these have been chigger bites, rather than some other insect. Therealdp (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A chigger sufferer speaks: The itch begins much sooner than 3 days. The Ohio State Extension Fact Sheet says, "Any welts, swelling, itching, or fever will usually develop three to six hours after exposure and may continue a week or longer." That's consistent with my experience. Btw, I was chiggered in Somerset, Md, between Bethesda and the District line, a not noticeably rural area. C. Cerf (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Link to vid of larva if anyone wants to use it

Don't have time to deal with adding it, converting it, whatever. You can see the internal organs moving...BTW it's on a piece of toilet paper.

http://ajawam.home.comcast.net/ch.wmv

I created this and fully release it to the public domain for whatever purpose. I used the Aven USB 200X to capture it - Wamnet (talk)

That's a tick, not a harvest mite. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 21:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No - I think it's a chigger... My kid was covered in them. He broke out later that night as shown in the main page. Tick's have 8 legs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick

That video is around 200x.. used the AVEN 200x microscope for it. Wamnet (talk)

I take it back - that is a tick larvae confirmed by Uof FL entomologist - cool... 68.49.29.182 (talk)

WAIT - I take that back... I called Lyle at U of FL Dept of Ent. and now he's not sure... the vid played back on his PC as he put it - "like the movie Predator - all red" The correct playback of the above vid should be a white background on a black stage. Looks similar to these photos http://www.mikebaker.com/animals/chiggers.html 68.49.29.182 (talk)

I would like you to compare the front pair of legs to this picture of a different species to the video. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 11:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, so far Lyle at U of LF and his mite expert seem to think it's a hard shell tick larvae. So if it ever gets confirmed, maybe someone can use the vid where it belongs... Wamnet (talk)

Odd sentence

What's with this sentence (found in the History section)? "However, most information about chiggers came from the problems aroused during and after World War II, because of the chiggers." First of all, it's clearly written by someone for whom English is not native. Who says that problems are "aroused"? And what does it mean that there were problems during and after WWII? Also, the odd ending "because of the chiggers" is unnecessary, given the mention of chiggers at the beginning of the sentence. Someone should make this statement function or delete it altogether. It adds nothing but confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.229.138 (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, where they bite

Can't someone document where they typically bite on humans? I mean folks don't believe that the bugs I grew up with attached to private parts and bra and underwear lines.