Talk:Earwig/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.

When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and ~~strike it out~~.

BTW I've occasionally had edit conflicts in review pages, and to reduce this risk I'd be grateful if you'd let me know when you're most active, so I can avoid these times.

Thanks for nominating this article. Most editors with an interest in biology nominate only species articles, because higher-level taxa need more research, and as a result WP's articles on higher-level taxa are mediocre. --Philcha (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

I'm afraid I'm seeing some top-level gaps that jump at me:

The description seems to cover only the European or common earwig and possibly other members of Forficulina - nothing about the other 2 extant sub-orders. Off the top I'd expect the ectoparasitic life style to involve: differences in limbs, for hanging on; differences in mouthparts and possibly digestive system, depending on what they eat; differences in reproduction, as finding mates must be more difficult for them since they don't just wander around in leaf litter or its human-made equivalents. --Philcha (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, and I'll do some research to see if there's anything that can be done to fill the gap. Let me just point out first that we probably don't need to pay much attention to the other two suborders — they play a significantly small role in the order itself, and are rarely seen. I'll see what I can do, nonetheless. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 20:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how do the ectoparasites parasitise bats and rodents? E.g. by sucking blood? --Philcha (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that to be the case, but I'm not sure. I fear that there is little information available about the specifics of these two suborders, as mentioned in my above comment. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 20:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No cladistic phylogeny - the Linnean system is going out of favour in zoology and cladistics is taking over, especially in paleontology. --Philcha (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... — I touched on the phylogeny of the extinct suborder at Archidermapteron martynovi, and I'll see what I can do here. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 20:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about their nearest relatives, in terms of both Linnean and cladistic taxonomy. --Philcha (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about what distinguishes them from their nearest relatives, and from similar-looking but not necessarily closely related taxa. See Annelid for an example. --Philcha (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about what distinguishes the sub-orders from each other. --Philcha (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, is the Taxonomy section not clear enough? I don't understand fully what you mean here. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 20:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about predators on or competitors of earwigs. --Philcha (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... — the tachinid fly is their only insect predator; I'll add that. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 20:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about basic anatomy. Arthropod may give you some ideas. --Philcha (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really necessary? Their internal anatomy is very similar to any other insect's, and the only major differences are covered in the Appearance and behavior section. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 20:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about senses. How do the non-parasites find food and the parasites find hosts? How do they find mates? How do they detect predators, and intraspecific or interspecific competitors? --Philcha (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I'll do some research to see if there's anything that can answer it. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 20:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very little about fossil record - just "despite a record of fossilization that began 208 million years ago and numerous extant species". I'd hope for:
- Where fossils were found, and in what sorts of environments. Brownie points for any fossil locations that have moved significantly as a result of continental drift, since Pangea did not break up until very approx 180 million years ago. --Philcha (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How fossils were preserved. Having relatively soft cuticles, earwigs don't look great candidates for fossilisation, so some explanation is required. If I had to guess, I'd think amber and lagerstätten are the most likely sources. --Philcha (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any significant changes over time, e.g. range, environments, size, morphology. --Philcha (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... — As mentioned above, there is some information I can add about fossils from the Archidermapteron martynovi article. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 20:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little about interaction with humans. --Philcha (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit about crop destruction, but perhaps I'll be able to add some more. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 20:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(comment) I may also find gaps when I start walking through individual sections. --Philcha (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that filling these gaps will take a bit of research, and I won't rush you (yet). If you have difficulty finding or accessing sources, send me a message - I may be able to help. --Philcha (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article covers the female reproductive system but ignores the male.IAmNitpicking (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

The additional content to fill the gaps will very likely make changes in structure necessary. --Philcha (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current structure looks odd anyway, e.g.: "Life cycle" before and including items abut appearance; "Distribution and habitat" and "Appearance and behavior" both refer to nocturnal behaviour and preferred habitats. I suggest you look at Arthropod, Annelid and Spider for ideas. --Philcha (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I've recently found it useful to have near the top a table of similarities and differences with related taxa and with taxa that are superficially similar, see e.g. Annelid or Ctenophore. In Earwig the obvious superficially similar taxon is Devil's coach horse beetle. --Philcha (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've rearranged some of the sections, but I'm getting reverted by another user, Abce2 (talk · contribs), who appears to disagree with me. I have requested that the user come on the article's talk page to discuss this. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 21:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably keep "Etymology" first for now, but let's see how it works. --Philcha (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review paused

My comments so far imply significant changes, so there's no point in doing a detailed walkthrough at present. Please leave a message here or at my Talk page if you think you've dealt with my comments so far, or if you have any questions or need any help. --Philcha (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stability of article

One of the GA criteria is "Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute". A comment above (21:08, 29 August 2009) suggests there may be a content dispute. I shall message the participants and then put tihs review "on hold" - if there is not significant progress in the next 7 days I will assess the artcile as a fail. --Philcha (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. This article obviously needs more work before it will meet GA status, anyway. We will continue to improve it, and hopefully it will be good enough to be resubmitted in the near future. Thanks, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 06:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links validity check

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved) link checker

Check for disambiguation and other dubious wikilinks

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)

shortcut for en.wikipedia.org with redirected and disambig page options selected - not working 11:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Dispenser's checker checks redirs of the article being reviewed

Use of images

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)

Lead

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)

Outcome of review

The editors have accepted that significant further work is need to bring this article to GA standard. I therefore concluded that for now the article has failed this GA review. However I look forward to seeing an improved version at WP:GAN. All the best, --Philcha (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - - please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - -
If you want to start a new section of the Talk page while this review is still here, edit the whole page, i.e.use the "edit" link at the top of the page.