Talk:Insect/GA3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Emw (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article for GA status based on the standard GA criteria. This article is a vital article and gets between 2,000 and about 3,500 hits per day (see here), so it's quite important that it be of high quality. Emw2012 (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from previous reviews[edit]

Looking at previous GA reviews, I see some worthwhile suggestions that have yet to be implemented. Many of Sasata's concerns from the first GA review are spot on. Some of them may be somewhat redundant with my comments, but I'll nevertheless paste Sasata's comments below so they can be addressed and subsequently struck out piecewise by me:

  • The lead currently isn't a summary of the article... see Wikipedia:Lead_section; make sure everything in the lead is discussed in the article itself: i.e., the etymology of entomology should also be in the article text; all of the specific stats about size and extremes need to be in the main text as well.
I believe that we covered this, or this is being covered bellow. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 22:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There are several 1- or 2-sentence "paragraphs" that should either be expanded or combined in some way.
There are two now that can't be merged, removed, but need to be expaned. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 23:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The external links section could use a trim and copyedit.
I gave it a little snipping before, but it be better to just get rid of it.
There are still several superfluous external links. For example, mytinygarden.com doesn't seem to be of much encyclopedic value. The same goes for at least for 'Keeping and breeding insects', which links to insectstore.com, and 'Insectclopedia', which seems very amateurish. I think the links to 'LiveScience:Insects' and 'INSECTS.org' are on the borderline of appropriate, so I'll leave it the the main editors' judgment to decide whether to keep or remove them. Emw2012 (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Yea, your right, i got rid of some of them. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 22:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The references should be reorganized into Footnotes" and "references", and often-used sources listed in the Reference section (thinking specifically of the Gullan, P.J.; P.S. Cranston (2005) reference); see the MOS for more details; would also suggest trimming down the "Further reading" section, and instead incorporating some of those as cited sources.
Wasn't sure about this one, might need help. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 23:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I spoke with another experienced editor about this, and I don't see a problem with keeping all of the references in one section. Emw2012 (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

General comments[edit]

  • I've gone through and fixed the remaining misplaced citations. Emw2012 (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Terms should not be wikilinked more than once within the same section.
  • That's fine by me. Emw2012 (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The article should remain consistent in using either American English or British English. For example, a search for both 'color' and 'colour' in the article returns instances of both terms. Also, watch out for the switching between '-ise' and '-ize'. Other differences between American and British English can be found here. An interesting AmE/BrE difference that may not be covered by that article is the tendency to use 'coevolution' in AmE, whereas BrE seems to have a very slight preference for 'co-evolution'.

Lead[edit]

  • The list beginning "approximately 30 Notoptera, 35 Zoraptera..." seems like too much detail. It should be removed and summarized by some phrase that avoids listing how many low-level taxa have been described to date.
I don't know about using the word seems, should we remove it and move it to classification? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 23:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
It should be removed from the lead, and replaced with a short summary phrase per above. I wouldn't simply cut and paste it into the 'Classification' section. In its current form the list seems like it would be better suited for a table with one column for each taxon's common name, one column for its scientific name, and one column for how many discovered species the taxon contains. Emw2012 (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I made it here, but it seems a little large, any ideas on were exactly you want to put it? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 12:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Bugger, you're right that such a table is too large, certainly for the 'Classification' section, where it would be most appropriate. Looking now I see that the quasi-phylogenetic tree in 'Classification' (beginning 'Apterygota' and using a bulleted list to denote taxonomic levels in the tree) contains many of the species' scientific and common names from the list in the lead. What are your thoughts on merging the lead list into that tree-like list? This would probably just entail adding the number of species identified from each taxon into the tree list. Also, references should be given for each number.
In the future, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't strike out my comments, even if it's a trivial fix and the concern has clearly been addressed. This is the convention in all reviews that I've encountered. Don't worry about removing the strikethrough in places you've already added it, just keep this in mind for this future. Emw2012 (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done thanks to User:Damërung Bugboy52.4 | =-= 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Fantastic! Emw2012 (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The number of citations in the lead should be pared down, given that citations are primarily used to support claims likely to be challenged and the ideal lead's level of generality would avoid many of these claims. Comparing this article's 11 lead citations to the hyper-controversial Evolution article's 13, something seems unconventional here. While I wouldn't necessarily suggest removing all citations, consider how the GA of this subject's parent taxon, Anthropod, is able to cover an unconventionally-long lead without invoking citations at all.
  •  Done! Removed refs that where unnecessary. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 00:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The lead image could be better convey the diversity of the taxon by including other insects, perhaps representatives of closely descendant taxa.
  • The new image looks great! Phenomenal work, BugBoy! Emw (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The insect anatomy diagram should be moved elsewhere, perhaps right-aligned immediately below the heading of the 'Body structure' section.
     Done Bugboy52.4 | =-= 12:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • While striving to stay within the four paragraph limit guideline of WP:LEAD, try to better distribute the lead coverage of each of article section. I notice the sections 'Reproduction', 'Senses and communication', 'Social behavior' and 'Locomotion' receive little to no coverage in the lead. Emw2012 (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
     Done Bugboy52.4 | =-= 14:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment: May need to be improved to make it flow.
  • The fourth paragraph seems oversized. Determine which elements are most important, and try decreasing that paragraph by a few sentences. Emw (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The arthropod article has a large lead, does that mean it's ok? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 20:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, no. All of User:Philcha's phylum GAs have exceptionally long leads, which goes against WP:LEAD#Length and thus GA criterion 1b. Philcha's cited WP:IAR in defense of that lack of compliance with the manual of style, but I think the rationale Philcha has provided is unsound. The discussion here gives some background. Emw (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Good edits. I removed more material from that fourth paragraph, and slightly expanded the third paragraph. In the first part of the second paragraph, I found the list of largest bugs etc. to be trivia-like in nature. I replaced that material with coverage of the 'Reproduction and development' section. There are a few very minor kinks in the lead, but I think it now meets the GA standard. Emw (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Body structure[edit]

Overall I like the first, 'lead' paragraph of this section. I made a bunch of minor copyedits to this section, as I intend to do to each section.

  • "The abdomen, which consists of eleven segments some of which may be reduced or fused...." While "fused" seems intuitive enough to me, what it means for a section to be 'reduced' isn't immediately apparent to me. Does it mean the section is simply smaller, and thus not considered a bona fide section? Maybe this should be made explicit; I'll leave it up to you.
  • Wouldn't 'Morphology' be a much better section heading? Emw (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Nervous system[edit]

  • "The head capsule, made up of six fused segments, has six pairs of ganglia." Since 'ganglia' is such a central term for this section, I think it would be useful to add an appositive description of the word in addition to the wikilink. For example, "...has six pairs of *brief descriptive phrase here* known as ganglia." Also, while the six ganglia are described quite nicely later, the relationship between the segments and the ganglia are not. (To be fair here, I'm not sure if there is one.) Does each the six segments house one of the six ganglia?
  •  Done:Yes there are a pair of ganglia for each segment. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 14:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "...while the three following pairs are fused into a structure called the subesophageal ganglion." As with 'ganglia', I think it would be better to add a bit more description of the term 'subesophageal ganglion' rather than assuming the reader will click through to the wikilinked article.
  • The paragraph beginning "Until very recently..." is one of those one-sentence paragraphs that could use expanding. First, I would suggest splitting up the sentence into two sentences. Then, consider adding a sentence or two discussing nocireption in insects. Given that there's a fairly well-developed article Pain in fish, I imagine a parallel summary discussion in this article about pain in insects would be worthwhile.
    You've already split the sentence, of course :) I added a link to Pain in animals, but I can't find much scientific web content on the subject (Just Yahoo answers, etc.) I'll be able to look in the library this weekend, though. A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 17:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • If you don't have easy and full access to academic journals (e.g., through a university), then consider reading through abstracts from hits on Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com). Querying Google Scholar for "pain in insects" or "nocirecption in insects" brings up a few results. Fewer still of these are freely accessible to the public, like this and this. A more recent paper on pain in the fruit fly Drosophila seems very relevant here: painless, a Drosophila Gene Essential for Nociception. If neither you nor BugBoy have easy access to the full version, let me know and I'll read it through. Even just reading the abstract, though, gives the impression that researchers do consider Drosophila (a model organism for animals, especially insects) to have a capacity to feel pain. Emw2012 (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The new information is an improvement, but I've removed the extra subsection structure since I don't think it's warranted. I also merged the second paragraph, which was one sentence, into the first. Let me know if you don't approve. There's still some prose-tweaking needed, but I'll take care of that tonight and strike once finished. Emw2012 (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Fine with me. The reason I split it into multiple paragraphs is because the quote at the end isn't directly related to the study. If you think it looks good, then it's okay. I'll leave the prose to you since I don't trust myself to phrase things very clearly :) A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 19:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Digestive system[edit]

  • "The insect's digestive system is a closed system...." Consider changing the phrase "closed system" to something else. It risks confusing readers with the more widely-used idea of a closed system as a system that is thermodynamically isolated. In any case, I don't see how the digestive system would be a closed system even in the colloquial sense used above. If anything, the digestive system seems like quite an open system, where nutrients enter from and waste exits into the environment. Maybe something along the lines of "unidirectional" or "one-way" would be better?
  • "The salivary glands (30) produce saliva...." There are five of these quasi-references in this section. All of them should be fixed by either removal (worse) or finding the reference corresponding to each (better).
quasi-reference? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 21:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
As in, they look like they should be (or once were) references, but they lack actual inline citations. Emw2012 (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
They're not references, they're numbers used to link the diagram at the left with the text. I think you'll get the idea if you check it out. But that does raise an issue: should we include some sort of key at the top of the section, or something so people can tell what the numbers mean? A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 17:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Ha! How dense of me. In that case, if the numbers beside the text are kept, then couldn't they just refer to the diagram that appears at the top-right of this section? I'm not sure the diagram to the left in this subsection is necessary. Simply filling labels of interest in red while keeping all of the extraneous labels isn't helpful enough (at least to me) to warrant repeating the image almost immediately below an efffective duplicate. Emw (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "The salivary glands (30) produce saliva, the salivary ducts lead from the glands to the reservoirs and then forward through the head to an opening called the salivarium behind the hypopharynx; which movements of the mouthparts help mix saliva with food in the buccal cavity." This sentence needs to split into two or more sentences and grammatically cleaned up.
  • "Saliva mixes with food which travels through salivary tubes into the mouth, beginning the process of breaking it down" seems redundant with the last clause in the previous sentence.
  • While I like the idea of separating discussion of the fore-, mid- and hind-gut into separate paragraphs, the three paragraphs corresponding to each portion of the gut are rather small. Each of the paragraphs should be expanded by at least one sentence (or, ideally, more).
This still needs work. Emw (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 Done! Bugboy52.4 | =-= 22:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • While I don't know if I would've gone with new sections for each section of the gut (since the midgut and hindgut paragraphs are small), I don't think the decision is issue enough to object. However, the hindgut section should be expanded by at least two sentences. Emw (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, got a little carried away, but  Done! fixed that one section. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 13:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph of the new 'Hindgut' section needs at least one reference. Emw (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I removed and merged the last paragraph, while looking for sources on it I found it incorrect per here and here. So I think this is taken care of. A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 20:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "In the fore-gut, initial breakdown of large food particles occurs." -> "This is where saliva begins breaking down large food particles."
  • Could "buccal cavity" be replaced by "mouth"? If not, "Buccal cavity" should be "buccal cavity" and the first instance of the term should be the one wikilinked, not the second.
    Replaced with "mouth". A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 17:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "The mid-gut is where digestion really happens, through enzymatic action." In general, colloquial phrases like "really" should be avoided in encyclopedias. The sentence is also misleading in that it suggests that the digestion occurring in the fore-gut is somehow not enzymatic. Saliva contains many enzyme that help break down food (e.g. amylase, which breaks down starch). Emw2012 (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Nice work with the rephrasing. Emw2012 (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "In some insects, the role of the microvilli may vary to even producing digestive enzymes, mattering on were they are located, near the origin of the midgut were it would be most likely absorption." This sentence isn't immediately clear to me. Are the microvilli at the beginning of the midgut the ones producing digestive enzymes? Looking at Microvilli#Enzymes, it seems that all microvilli produce such enzymes -- so is your sentence implying that microvilli towards the end of the midgut do not produce digestive enzymes? The sentence also seems a bit runny. Take special care to avoid run-ons; I notice they're a recurring concern in this review. Emw (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done clarified. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 14:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "The rectum absorbs 90% of the water in these fecal pellets, and the dry pellet is then eliminated through the anus (element 17), completing the process of digestion. This organ empties directly into the alimentary canal, and connects at the junction between the midgut and hindgut." The second sentence here seems out of context, especially when juxtaposed with the sentence before it. What does "this organ" refer to? Emw (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Respiration and circulation[edit]

  • "The insect circulatory system has no veins or arteries, and instead consists of little more than a single, perforated dorsal tube..." What is a dorsal tube? Is it contained in the insect anatomy diagram at the top-right of the section? Emw (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, their in the diagram. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 13:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the image caption to match the term's usage in the article body. Emw (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Hemolymph" should be explained and expanded upon. Emw (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done expanded and referenced. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 14:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "There are many different patterns of gas exchange demonstrated by different groups of insects. Gas exchange patterns in insects can range from continuous, diffusive ventilation, to discontinuous gas exchange." What is the difference between continuous, diffusive ventilation and discontinuous gas exchange? Also, discontinuous gas exchange is a surprisingly well-developed article. Consider incorporating a few sentences of information from it into an expanded summary explanation of the subject here in this subsection. Emw (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Gas exchange patterns in insects can range from continuous, diffusive ventilation, to discontinuous gas exchange." This sentence seems to imply that there are two types of gas exchange: 1) gas exchange that is both continuous and diffusive, and 2) gas exchange that is discontinuous. However, later in the same paragraph, diffusive ventilation is called "a completely different form of respiration" -- what seems to imply that there is a substantial difference between continuous and diffusive ventilation. Is that the case? Emw (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Done! I think continuous and discontinuous are both different processes of respiration. Diffusive ventilation is an alternative way of breathing that can occur in continuous gas exchange systems. I rewrote it in the article, hope it's clear. A little insignificant Bloated on candy 13:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Exoskeleton[edit]

Those sections don't go much into detail about the parts, and the insect wings are outgrowths of the insect exoskeleton. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 19:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This subsection seems like it could benefit from including some information from Arthropod#Exoskeleton (except for the second paragraph). Try integrating that information into the current version of this article. Emw (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • How does the insect exoskeleton differ from the exoskeleton of other arthropods, like crustaceans and arachnids? Emw (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Reproduction and development[edit]

  • "Most insects hatch from eggs, but some are ovoviviparous or viviparous..." Rather than relying solely on wikilinks, briefly explain what is meant by "ovoviviparous" and "viviparous". Give some respective examples of what types of insects use each birth strategy. Emw (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
     Done Bugboy52.4 | =-= 21:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Some examples of insects that display ovoviviparity and viviparity would be helpful here. Emw (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks good! Small note: in the future, when first using the scientific name of organisms (like Blaptica dubia, your example for ovoviviparity), also note the organism's common name (in the case of B. dubia, that would be something like "cockroach"). This just makes more understandable to the lay reader. Emw (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The few sentences about molting seem slightly out of place in the first paragraph. Consider separating them into a separate paragraph. Take Arthropod#Molting into account as well, integrating information from it. Note whatever features of molting may be special to insects -- how does molting in insects differ from that in crustaceans and arachnids? Emw (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done I moved it and added a lot. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 23:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
That makes a very noticeable improvement; kudos. Could you briefly mention how molting in insects differs from molting in other arthropods, like crustaceans and arachnids? Emw (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done! There really isn't much of a difference other than holometabolism is unique to certain insects. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 14:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know you wanted that image, but what about the other one there? this or this? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 00:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks good! Emw (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Having two images of mating flies seems unnecessary. The one on the top left seems far superior. Removing the bottom right image would also free space for the molting cicada animation.. Emw (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Other developmental and reproductive variations include haplodiploidy, polymorphism, paedomorphosis (metathetely and prothetely), sexual dimorphism, parthenogenesis and more rarely hermaphroditism." Like in the first concern I brought up in this sec, each of these technical terms should be briefly explained, not only wikilinked. It would help to have at least a sentence-length explanation for each term, including some examples. Emw (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Senses and communication[edit]

  • "The range of frequencies insects can hear is often narrow, and may be limited to the frequencies that they produce." What are those frequencies? Emw (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • For the concern immediately above, I'm looking for a number value (e.g., a rough range in MHz). Emw (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done Bugboy52.4 | =-= 22:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The tweaks you've made are an improvement, but they don't meet the request I've outlined above. To me, that request seems clear, but let me know if you'd like further clarification. Also, though I realize this may be asking too much for a GA, it would be very nice to also know the range of amplitude, in decibels, that insects producee and perceive sound (in addition to the range of frequency in MHz). If this information is a pain to locate, it's fine to leave these two requests unfulfilled. Emw (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry about the post immediately above. I made it after skimming through the section on my phone's browser, and didn't notice that you addressed the concern. Emw (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "...such as the solitary wasps that provision with a single species of prey." Could "provision with" be replaced by the more read-friendly "feed on"? Emw (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
    Replaced with "prey upon". A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 12:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sound production and hearing[edit]

  • "These calls are also made by other moths involved in mimicry." What are the moths mimicking? Emw (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "...produced by the mechanical actions of movement often aided by special microscopic stridulatory structures." "Mechanical actions of movement" is vague and redundant both in itself and, at least I would guess, also with "aid by special microscopic stridulatory structures." Emw (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    Rephrased like a hot tamale! A little insignificant Bloated on candy 20:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "Most insects are also able to sense vibrations transmitted by the substrate." I think "the substrate" is somewhat vague likely too academic here. Could "surface" suffice as a replacement? I would also include an example or two, something along the lines of "...by surfaces like webbing or (your specific example here)." Emw (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    I did some rephrasing here, too, but I'm not sure I did it correctly. Could you take a look at it? A little insignificant Bloated on candy 20:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks good. Emw (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "Communication using substrate-borne vibrational signals is more widespread among insects because of size constraints in producing air-borne sounds." What are those size constraints? The sentence after the one I've cited here may render the cited sentence redundant, but I'll leave it to the main editors' judgment as to whether the sentence in question here should be removed. Emw (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Does that clarify? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 13:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "The mechanisms of production of vibrational signals are just as diverse as those for producing sound in insects." This sentence seems a bit superficial; consider expanding it to add some substance. Emw (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    Let it be superficial no more!! ...I think. I changed it to "Insects use as diverse an array of mechanisms to produce vibration as they do to produce sound." I'm not sure that's clear enough, let me know if I should change it again. A little insignificant Bloated on candy 16:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "...myrmecophilous lycaenid caterpillars" -- The two technical terms here should be wikilinked and briefly explained. Emw (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "The Madagascar hissing cockroach has the ability to press air through its spiracles to make a hissing noise, and the Death's-head Hawkmoth makes a squeaking noise by forcing air out of their pharynx." This sentence seems miscellaneous, or at least unconnected the the rest of the paragraph. Emw (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Elaborated on the purposes these two forms of communication serve and added references for them. Cliff smith talk 20:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Chemical communication[edit]

  • This subsection should be expanded by a solid paragraph or two. For example, insects' use of pheromones is an important topic that seems to be omitted in the current version of the article. Thankfully the pheromone article is mostly about the different types of insect pheromones. This recent piece from ScienceDaily may also be of interest: 'Death Stench' Is A Universal Ancient Warning Signal, Biologists Discover. Emw (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Social behavior[edit]

  • The second paragraph of this section should have at least one reference. Emw (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • According to its entry on Amazon.com, the book cited in the second new reference of that paragraph only has 248 pages. However, the reference cites 'pages=336' (which I changed from 'pages=336pp'). That doesn't make sense to me. I can't be sure whether the mistake here is that the 'pages' parameter is being used to note the number of pages in the book (which is not the purpose of the 'pages' parameter), or whether the mistake was simply a typo in citing the number of the page that supports the claim being made. In any case, something seems wrong with this citation, and that should be fixed. (As it currently stands, the full citation is: Oberhauser, Karen S. (June 2004). "27". In Michelle Solensky. The Monarch Butterfly. 1 (1 ed.). Cornell University: Cornell University Press. p. 336. ISBN 0801441889.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help).) Emw (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The value you fill in for the 'page' parameter should refer to the page number of the book that contains information supporting the claim in the article. The 'pages' parameter is just like the 'page' parameter, except that it's used when supporting information in the book spans more than one page. Neither the 'page' nor the 'pages' parameter refer to the number of pages in the book.
I also suspect that the 'chapter' parameter was mistakenly used to indicate the number of chapters in the book. Instead, the 'chapter' parameter should be used to the chapter in which the supporting material is found. To avoid these sorts of confusions in the future, you and Bugboy may want to read through Template:Cite_book#Description. Emw (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, I wasn't sure, but what does the {{rp}} mean? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 01:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
According to its documentation at Template:Rp, the 'rp' in the {{rp}} template stands for "reference pages". Since the purpose of the rp template is to address "...the problem of an article with a source that must be cited many, many times, at numerous different pages," I think it would be best to use the standard 'page' parameter of the cite book template for the reference in question. Emw (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done Changed instead, but I learned a lot. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 16:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "A few insects migrate, but this is a larger-scale form of navigation, and often involves only large, general regions." This sentence is odd to me in that the second and third clauses seem like they're being used to negate the claim being made in the first clause (that insects migrate), but that they do so by citing things that don't seem to contradict the claim in that first clause. In other words, how would insect migration being "a larger-scale form of navigation" and only involving "large, general regions" somehow negate the fact that it is bona fide migration? Emw (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Your right, there isn't  Done: fixed! Bugboy52.4 | =-= 15:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I've changed the material in question to resolve my concern. Please let me know whether my change (reviewable here) introduced any inaccuracies. Emw (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Nice, but don't you think we should clarify a few insects that do migrate? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 13:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Care of young[edit]

  • References to geocities pages are never good. Replace the one being used as this subsection's only reference with something more reliable. Emw (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Done! Replaced with a reference from NDSU. A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 20:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Locomotion[edit]

Flight[edit]

  • "Para-notal" should be explained. Emw (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done: reference to the area, and also went on to explain the flight theories too. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 15:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "The evolution of insect wings has been a subject of debate. Some proponents suggest that the wings are from paranotal lobes on the paranota in origin, called the paranotal theory; others have suggested they are modified epicoxal exits of the insect's legs, called the Epicoxal theory." Here, "some proponents" needs context. What they're a proponent of hasn't yet been defined. Perhaps "Some [[entomology | entomologists]]" would work? Also, this expansion doesn't much explain what the paranota are, which should be simple to convey through a very brief (< 6 word) definition. The same thing applies for "epicoxal": the term should be briefly explained (e.g., defined) so that it doesn't leave the lay reader doesn't necessarily have to click through a wikilink (which would be nice to have for the term) to understand what's being said. Emw (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed, tell me what you think. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 13:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Well explained. Emw (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "...fine line patterns associated with converging winds within weather radar imagery, like the WSR-88D, are dominated by insect returns" Is there an simpler way than "insect returns" to say that the radar is detecting insects? Emw (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I've reworded your rewording with this edit. Let me know if it's accurate. Emw (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Very nice, which I was able to do reword like that. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 13:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Walking[edit]

  • "The purest form of the tripedal gait is seen in insects moving at speed." Presumably "at high speeds" would be more accurate, no? Emw (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
     Done oops. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 19:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Swimming[edit]

  • "Some groups have aquatic adults as well." "Groups" is vague -- does it refer to a specific taxonomic rank? Emw (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I added a link to aquatic beetles, because I didn't think we needed to list all of about 17 aquatic beetle families. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 19:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Some species like the water striders are capable of walking on the surface of water. They can do this because their claws are not at the tips of the legs as in most insects, but recessed in a special groove further up the leg; this prevents the claws from piercing the water's surface film." I'll leave it to the other editors' judgment here, but these sentences seem more appropriate for the 'Walking' section; consider moving them (and their accompanying reference) there.Emw (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Yea, I would leave this here, though it is not technically swimming, it is still ON water. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 19:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Emw (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Species that are submerged also have adaptations to aid in respiration. Many larval forms have gills that can extract oxygen dissolved in water, while others need to rise to the water surface to replenish air supplies which may be held or trapped in special structures." Like the concern above, these sentences (and their accompanying reference) seem more appropriate for another section -- this time, the 'Respiration and circulation' subsection. Emw (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
     Done Bugboy52.4 | =-= 19:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Evolution[edit]

  • "...evidence has emerged favoring closer evolutionary ties with crustaceans." Is 'evolutionary ties' being used to refer to common descent? I'm not sure if this is necessarily the case, so I'll leave it to the main editors to investigate. If it does indeed turn out to be the case, then wikilink to common descent from evolutionary ties as follows: [[common descent | evolutionary ties]]. Emw (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    Done! A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 20:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The term "dicondylic mandibles" should be briefly explained. Emw (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 Done - Damërung . -- 22:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Classification[edit]

  • Could you explain the difference between the phylogeny shown in the bulleted list and the phylogeny shown in the new collapsible list (the one using teal rectangles to separate taxa)? It would be nice to have one, complete list that contains information from both the bulleted and collapsible lists. Emw (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you explain on what you mean. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 16:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Phylogeny may've been a poor word choice there. I should have said taxonomy, as in the type of hierarchical structure that's being used to show the groups into which insects have been classified. To clarify, I'm asking what the difference is between the list in the center of this section and the collapsible list in the upper right of this section. If you remember back to the redundant insect anatomy diagram in the Morphology section, my problem here with these lists is similar to that problem. The two taxonomic lists seem redundant. It would be good to merge the bulleted list into the collapsible list. Emw (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • KK, I know what phylogeny and taxonomy are though. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 18:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This section is much too complex and reader-unfriendly as it currently stands. I can easily imagine most readers' eyes glazing over upon encountering it. Simplify the wording where possible. Where simplification is not possible (and even where it is), add some explanation of the terms. Guide readers through while maintaining their interest. The section needs to have more of a story; it currently seems much more like a prose-listing of factoids. Remember, our articles are written for non-specialists. Emw (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Simplified words, but making it into a story, I don't know if I know how to do that. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 16:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • To be clear here, when I say "story" I don't mean something like the story of Peter Pan or what have you. By story, I mean something that's narrative, interconnected, and explained in context. I think the current style of this section somewhat neglects those features of good explanations. Maybe what I'm saying here is too nebulous to be actionable, or maybe the nature of this particular material is inherently difficult to convey to lay readers in an easily digestible way. Don't worry about this particular large concern. I'll try taking a crack at it in time to see what I can do. Emw (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I know what you meant by story, but I'm not particularly good at that, not to say it can't be done by someone else. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 18:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "...it is best to avoid using terms such as subclass, superorder and infraorder and instead focus on monophyletic groupings." This wording is a little too close to that of a how-to, and should be rephrased to remove its instructional feel. Also, 'monophyletic' should be briefly explained. Emw (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Not quite. A good rule of thumb is to avoid normative statements; that's what I mean when I say it reads like a how to. "...it is best to avoid" and "instead focus on" are the specific phrases I'm concerned about here. Try rephrasing them so that they're not telling the reader what they ought to do. Emw (talk)
  • Tried agian. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 18:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The paragraph "Insects can be divided..." should have a reference somewhere (preferably at the end of the paragraph, if the reference supports all the claims therein). Emw (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
On what page is the point about Thysanura not being monophyletic mentioned? I don't see anything about that on linked page (page 96) of the referenced book. And two points about references. First, when used for a referenced book, the 'page(s)' parameter in the {{cite book}} tag refers to the page(s) of the source being cited, not the number of pages in the book. This should be reflected in the new reference you added. Second, and this is more aesthetic, it's helpful to put a space between the vertical bars separating each parameter. For example: this would change {{cite book|last=Gilliott|first=Cedric|title=Entomology|... to {{cite book | last=Gilliott | first=Cedric | title=Entomology |.... It just makes the wiki syntax much easier to maintain. Emw (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Got it. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 18:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Briefly explain what 'hemimetabolous' and 'holometabolous' mean. Emw (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done! Wow, I did this with out even reading this, It's like I read your mind spooky. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 16:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "It has proven particularly difficult to elucidate interordinal relationships within Polyneoptera. Phasmatodea and Embiidina have been suggested to form Eukinolabia." This is a particularly egregious example of the second concern I raised about this section. Emw (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done? I changed the word elucidate, is that all you meant? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 16:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That's part of what I meant. More so, I don't think the reader will have much, if any, of an idea what is meant what terms like "interordinal relationships", "Polyneoptera", "Phasmatodea", "Embiidina" or "Eukinolabia". Why is it difficult to clarify the interordinal relationships among Polyneopera? I'll try infusing some context here, but it'd be good if you could answer that particular question. Emw (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Well I answered the question, and the rest of the "facts" are just supporting it. As for the other terms, they are just orders, I don't think we need to define them. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 19:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Paleoptera and Neoptera are the winged orders of insects separated by the presence of hardened body parts called sclerites and, in Neoptera, muscles that allow their wings to fold flatly over the abdomen." This is a run-on, and unclear. Emw (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed the run-on part, but how is this unclear? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 19:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Relationship to humans[edit]

  • The second and third paragraphs of this section lack any references. Please make sure that each paragraph has at least one reference. If that one reference doesn't support claims in the paragraph that could foreseeably be challenged, then add references to support those specific claims. Emw (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The two journal citations added to the third paragraph -- references 73 and 74 -- need to be fixed. During this review I've corrected a handful of references on my own, but henceforth I think it'd be best if the main editors fixed whatever mistakes there are with references. For an example of how journal references are properly done, consider any journal reference here: Homologous_recombination#References. While I prefer completing references manually, you may find the convenience of Diberri's automatic template filling tool more to your liking. Emw (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Many entomologists are involved in various forms of pest control, often using insecticides, but more and more relying on methods of biocontrol." Explain how entomologists are involved in pest control. Also, briefly explain what 'biocontrol' means and how it differs from insecticides. Emw (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Biocontrol has been proven to be better, as it uses natural means, unlike non-envirometally friendly insecticides." The phrase "natural means" should be replaced by something more encyclopedic (e.g. "predation, parasitism and herbivory"). Also, which of the two references says that biocontrol has proven to be better? This strikes me as a controversial claim that should be referenced by more than one academic source. In any case, I don't think that http://www.biconet.com/biocontrol.html qualifies as a reliable source. If that's the case, please remove it. Emw (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I reworded it instead, because I couldn't find a better way of saying "natural means." As for the biocontrol being better is not certain as it is still under research and not always as efficient, so I reworded it to sound more neutral. Tell me how I did and give me some pointers on how better to reword adn use better words as I am weak in that area :). Bugboy52.4 | =-= 17:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "Natural" is a somewhat vague term, and in my opinion is best to avoid in scientific writing, or writing about science. In any case, I'm not sure if I would consider some common biocontrol practices (e.g., introducing non-native predators to reduce pest populations) natural even in the colloquial sense. I removed the reference to biconet.com, since as a commercial vendor of biocontrol products it didn't seem like a reliable source.
  • I also tried neutralizing the language. The implicit phrase "better than insectides" was the issue here. It didn't seem to have a consensus among reliable sources (e.g. academic journal articles) and was thus a judgment I thought should be left to the reader. If you're interested in how hone your ability to write neutrally, carefully read through the first two sections of WP:NPOV if you haven't done so already, and keep my rationale in the previous sentence in mind. Emw (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The paragraph beginning "Insects also produce useful substances..." veers slightly off-topic into discussing entophagy, which is discussed in depth in the subsequent paragraph. Try to tease out the redundancies here to make the two paragraphs distinct. Emw (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "The most useful of all insects are insectivores..." This seems too opinionated -- consider rephrasing it to something more neutral. The rest of this paragraph seems a bit too colloquial. Try to tightening and formalizing the language. Emw (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
This is another of one of those things that I can't do: rewording sentences/changing things to neutral. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 20:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Wait, made an attempt. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 21:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Rewrote most of the paragraph. Me thinkeys it's fixed now. A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 16:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The edits noted just above improved things. I've also gone the the paragraph to fix the issue. Emw (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph, starting "Human attempts to control pests by insecticides can backfire", is too short at the moment to warrant its own paragraph. Either expand it or merge it into another related paragraph. Emw (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The material you've added seems a bit undirected. The paragraph starts out noting that human attempts at pest control can have the unintended consequence of actually increasing pest insect populations. This topic is what subsequent sentences in the paragraph should develop. Instead, the new material goes on to discuss the fact that 1) DDT had bad effects on the environment and that it 2) significantly decreased populations of insect disease vectors. Both of these claims are true, but do not serve to further the thesis of this paragraph (the second claim about decreasing mosquito and tick populations even seems to contradict it). Rework the supporting sentences of this paragraph so that they develop the theme set out in the topic sentence. Emw (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Mostly alright. I think the extended discussion of DDT was slightly off-topic and too detailed, so I pared that back significantly. Emw (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The reference to Insect Pests of Farm, Garden, and Orchard should have a page number. If finding that is a hassle and the reference is redundant with the other two sources being used to support the claims in that sentence, then don't feel bad about removing the reference. Emw (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Since it's only a single page, 'pp. 38' isn't correct -- it should be 'p. 38'. This can be fixed in the {{cite book}} tag by changing the parameter from 'pages=' to 'page='. The reference should also have a publisher and, if applicable, an edition number. Emw (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • A paragraph should be devoted to explaining insects' role in biological research. Be sure to mention Drosophila melanogaster. It is a critical model organism for animals, and has thus facilitated the discovery of much of modern knowledge about genetics and neuroscience. Emw (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done: Added some info about fruit flies in genetic research, tell me how I did! Bugboy52.4 | =-= 17:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Nice work. Emw (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

See also[edit]

  • This section seems slightly bloated. If terms are wikilinked in an article's body, then they conventionally aren't also included in its 'See also' section. Some of the links, like 'Insect morphology', may be better placed in tags like {{Further information}} or {{Main}} (or what have you) immediately below the headings of appropriate sections in the article body. (In the case of 'Insect morphology', this would be 'Body structure'.) Emw (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
     Done Bugboy52.4 | =-= 22:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Concluding remarks[edit]

Given the improvements brought about by this review, Insect is a good article that satisfies the relevant criteria. Over almost two months, 300+ edits and an 80+ KB review, the quality of this article has increased significantly -- consider the article before and after the process. Kudos to the editors involved, especially Bugboy52.40 and A little insignificant.

Result of review: Pass
Emw (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)