Talk:Embioptera/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 22:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Looks good at first glance, I expect my comments to be brief. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Many thanks from me and for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * All concerns addressed
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * All concerns addressed
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * No issues with source formatting
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Sources are reliable
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Spotchecks are okay
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Spotchecks are clear, Earwig's tool is clear.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Adequately broad for GA level and for a poorly known taxon
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * No extraneous material
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * No issues
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No issues
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Image licensing checks out to the best of my abilities
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * No issues
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * All concerns addressed, passing shortly

Comments

 * I prefer full names for scientists at first mention; I know when discussing etymology it's often the convention not to do so, but I think it preferable to follow Wikipedia convention rather than scientific convention here.
 * Done.


 * Link termites/neuropterans.
 * Done.


 * I would prefer the two sentences of "Diversity" to be folded into "phylogeny", where there's more context for it, but it's not a requirement.
 * Done.


 * "the new family Sinembiidae" What's a new family? Do you perhaps mean that the family was described when those species were described?
 * Yes. Glossed.


 * At second mention, Ross can be just "Ross"
 * Done.


 * "first fossil member" again slightly ambiguous; first discovered, or earliest known?
 * Discovered.


 * Link "Oligotomidae"
 * Done.


 * Unlink Myanmar, since it's a country; link amber
 * Done.


 * Link/explain "Compression fossils"
 * Done.


 * In "Phylogeny", you say the phylogeny of Embioptera has been debated; but the example you give if of the Embioptera's position the broader insect phylogeny; also, if it has been debated, what's the contrary position? Also; was that the only debate, or is the within-Embioptera phylogeny also controversial? I think the material is fine, but some rephrasing/reordering may be necessary. Among other things, the cladogram is better suited to be displayed after the first paragraph, as its discussion the position of the embioptera, not the phylogeny within them.
 * Rearranged, and separated the external and internal paragraphs more clearly; perhaps this will serve better.


 * I'd move "distribution and habitat" to somewhere below description; it ties in with the ecology material a little bit better (keeping it a separate section, just reordering sections).
 * Moved it down. (We normally feel that this goes quite well with 'Diversity' ...)


 * There's a little repetition with respect to adaptation to tubular dwellings.
 * Tweaked.


 * Some grammatical inconsistency in the sentence about characteristic features. I fixed one issue, but I'm unsure how to handle "closed on the underside by a central plate".
 * Copy-edited, and removed the fragment.


 * To me, the life cycle would read more naturally if the current first sentence were made the second-to-last. Just a suggestion, though.
 * Done.


 * There's some tense variation in "life cycle" that could be eliminated for simplicity.
 * Fixed.

More comments

 * "extend their galleries into new food sources" Are you sure that "into" is what is meant here?
 * Tweaked.


 * There's more stuff about adaptation down in the galleries section. It could fit either there or in description, but it needs to be collected, I think.
 * Done.


 * Ross's full name, again, isn't needed in "diet"
 * Done.


 * Is there information available on how long the males live? It isn't long, sure, but it would be interesting to know more precisely.
 * The sources just say they die soon; as they don't feed, it's just a matter of starvation, a variable feast as it were; there's no programmed death with a built-in timer or anything like that.


 * "wasp larva attaches itself" to what?
 * The host.


 * "Associates" is an odd term in this context
 * Well if it were known they were egg predators we could say so; if they were known to be long-term companions but certainly not predators we could say they were symbionts. But it isn't, so they're just associates of some kind.


 * "Aposthonia ceylonica has been found living inside a colony of the Indian cooperative spider" Which of these is the Embiopteran?
 * A. ceylonica.


 * The second paragraph of "parasites and predation" isn't really about either of those things; I'm wondering if its better moved into "ecology"
 * The whole section is ecology, so demoted it; put the 2nd para in a separate subsection.


 * I don't think redlinks in the sources section are very helpful.
 * Gone.


 * The wing-inflation bit is, I think, too much detail for the lead.
 * Trimmed.


 * Last sentence of the lead has two "but"s. Breaking it up would be nice.
 * Split.


 * Running through again really quickly, I'm a little concerned by the "unique" in the first paragraph of the body. I assume you intend the word to refer to the location of the glands, but it's ambiguous; also, is it actually supported by the source?
 * Edited, and yes, it's in the source.