Talk:Parasitoid/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) 22:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Detailed comments[edit]

To follow within the next few days.

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strategies

You'll likely get some criticism at some point about your use of colour in the table in this section, on the basis that it compromises the accessibility for those using screen readers. But as accessibility isn't one of the GA criteria I'm simply flagging that up. (While writing that I was reminded of the TV commentator on a game of snooker, which went something like "For those of you watching in black-and-white, the red ball is behind the yellow.)

Yes. I took care to make the use of colour redundant to position, indent, and italics, which ought to be enough.

Influence on host behaviour

"Among pathogens of mammals, the rabies virus affects the host's central nervous system, eventually killing it ..." I'm no expert, but I'm surprised to see a virus being described as a parasite, as viruses are not normally considered to be alive.

Viruses are basically entirely parasitic as they can't carry out any of the functions of "life", whatever that is, for themselves. Some prophage viruses may be beneficial, however, which would make them the exception to pure parasitism in the group.

Taxonomic range

" ... ten times or more in Coleoptera, and no less than 21 times among the Diptera". Should either be ten ... twenty-one, or 10 ... 21.

Fixed.

The same point I made earlier about accessibility probably also applies to your use of bold markup in the phylogenetic tree.

Yes. Again, the usage is intentionally redundant to the use of the parentheses with 'clade' in them, and the square brackets with numbers in them.

Hymenoptera

"Hosts such as ants are often aware of the wasps' presence, making violent movements to prevent oviposition." We can never know what an ant is aware of, it may just be a simple stimulus-response. The most we can justifiably say is that the ant behaves as if it's aware of the presence of the wasp.

Fixed. I am amused to be reminded of the insistence by B. F. Skinner's behaviourists that animals had no cognition, only stimulus-response...

I can't help myself. Skinner remains one of my heroes, and seeing him speaking live at the Royal Institution was one of the highlights of my undergraduate psychology course. Eric Corbett 05:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"... some wasps inundate their host with their eggs so as to overload the encapsulation response". This "encapsulation response" is unexplained.

Good catch. Explained.

Other orders

"Some 1600 species of the large and mainly freeliving family Carabidae are parasitoids." When four digit numbers were used earlier they contained a thousand separator, so consistency is needed. My preference is to use thin spaces rather than commas, but consistency is obviously the prime objective.
"Parasitism is rare in the Trichoptera (caddisflies)". Why are we talking about parasitism rather than parasitoidism?

1,600 it is.

In biological pest control

"... the cost/benefit ratio for classic control being 1:250, but more variable in its effects than pesticides". This is rather muddled. What's more variable, the cost/benefit ratio?

Reworded.

In science fiction

"Parasitoids have inspired science fiction authors and screenwriters to create disgusting and terrifying parasitic alien species ...". I think that the word "disgusting" is a little too emotional. How can we be sure that they disgust everyone?

Removed.

"The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction lists many instances of 'parasitism', often causing the host's death, in science fiction." This sentence reads very strangely to me. Why would we expect The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction to contain anything other than instances in science fiction?

Removed the phrase.

... and that's it. I'm putting this review on hold now. Eric Corbett 00:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we're done here now. This article clearly meets the GA criteria in spades. It's very fitting, I think, that the final edit of my Wikipedia career will be to add the little green button, which I'll be doing imminently. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to do that. Eric Corbett 05:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.