This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and Dogs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Some info on the symptoms of a bite would be useful in this article. Does it itch? Does it cause a rash, inflamation etc.?
See Lyme disease. Should be made a more important point in the article, as that article contains much more precise information on ticks than this article of US ticks. Generally, one would notice a tick after a full body search done right after a trip in the forest. They don't make much of themselves, as they are dependent on having time to find a good ore to suck on. If it has bitten you or your dog or your cat, remove it - either by grabbing it and rotating it before yanking it, or with a pair of tweezers. It is said that one must get out everything, but that is not a very big problem in the whole picture. My only bite has grown a hair, nothing else. Hopefully with my own genes. If you take out the tick within a day , the chance of catching something wicked is small. Check your bite up to a a couple of months after you have been bitten. The moment you feel a fever or have a red spot or several at the bite or somewhere entirely elsewhere, you must go see a doctor. Some who get bitten have a itch, some don't. For some any disease can be quick to discover and quick to cure, for some - neither. Some ticks have borreliosis, smoe don't. More precise numbers must be found, also for those ticks not US.
The article needs information about how the tick's saliva acts as "cement" (there is a video on this) and how the mandibles curve back. There should be pictures of the mouthparts like the hypostome, and there should be clarification on how many mouthparts are actually inserted for feeding.
This section in general is a little thin. Is there information on how far north they are found? Whether they are present in greater quantities around human habitation? Whether the different varieties differ in range?
"Despite their poor reputation among humans, ticks play an ecological role in their communities." This sentence appears to make a normative judgement about such a role, which I am in general not fond of.
No, it just says that many people don't like them.
I'd disagree, but we can have that conversation elsewhere :)
I'd already changed my mind on that and had intended to remove it: it did have a normative feel to it!
Furthermore, the first paragraph here is a little out of place, as it is not referring to humans. What I would suggest is that the first paragraph of this section, minus the sentence fragment "Despite their poor reputation among humans," be moved to the "Range and habitat" section, which can then be titled "range, habitat, and ecology". Alternatively, the disease ecology bit could become its own section.
"the mobile host can travel the globe" this is odd, as the next fragment says "migrate across the sea" which is a subset of travelling the globe. I'd suggest a different phrase here.
Actually, ignore the struck comment. I read the whole section, and it seems to me that the issue is not so much with some content being out of place as with the section being inappropriately titled. It deals with all aspects of disease ecology, so why not call it that?
In general, this article is on the short side, at ~28kb/2500 words of prose. This is not in and of itself a problem, so long as we can be certain the major aspects have been covered: at the moment, what I'm concerned with is the relative length of the "range" information, but I'm also wondering if more detail can be added on the ecological role, and/or about diseases in animals other than humans.
Have added description of taxonomic range. Their ecological role is rather sharply limited to being ectoparasites and carriers of disease.
The lede is the only place where reptiles and amphibians are mentioned as hosts.
At the moment, the lead does not seem to include information about the range/distribution, or the life cycle of ticks.
The sources are generally very very solid, but I'm a little uncertain about the "CVBD" source, and the "aafp" website. Do they really qualify as RS, especially given that they are used for quasi-medical information?
The CVBD source is a Bayer site, and is used only for anatomical information, for which we are sure it is reliable. The American Family Physician journal is reliable but have replaced it with the same advice from the impeccable Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
This result is rather worrying. This does not look like a website that lifted from Wikipedia.
I'm glad to say that that paragraph pre-dated our involvement with the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC) I have removed it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
That makes two of us, I would hate to be the one to discover two editors I have huge respect for violating copyright... :) Vanamonde (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't the commons link go in the see also section? Not sure about this, but that's where I've always seen it.Vanamonde (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the reorganization, but I'm really not a fan of the level-two heading "biology". I would consider taxonomy and population control biology too, and I think it makes the TOC ugly: but this is not quite contrary to any guideline, and so I cannot make you change it. Just a suggestion.
Taxonomy moved inside. I try to keep number of chapters down to around 7 as a rule, and the biology/with humans split is well established also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Still not a fan, but okay.
That's everything, I do believe: passing this shortly. I hope you folks found the review a helpful process. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks, and yes of course, the article is the sharper for the careful review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, thanks. A good reviewer sees things that previous contributors missed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)