Talk:Grasshopper/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bfpage (talk · contribs) 13:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I will strike-through each point as it is addressed and completed to help clarify what needs to happen according to the GA instructions to reviewers  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 22:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Immediate failures
An article can be failed without further review (known as quickfailing or quick failing) if, prior to the review:

*It has cleanup banners that are obviously still valid or needs new cleanup banners. These include,  ,  or large numbers of  ,  ,  , or similar tags.
 * in order.  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 13:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

*It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria.
 * assessed separately.

*It contains copyright infringements.
 * It appears that there is a LOT of close paraphrasing done by others of the article, but I have found no copy vio's. I would think that using this article as a main source of information on all the other websites that I found is considered a form of flattery.
 * in order.  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 13:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No immediate failures

Input from the "Peer reviewer" tool
These are the suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question, but I will follow up on each 'suggestion'. I anticipate that a lot of the suggestions will not apply at this point. Okay, so the javascript program states:

* Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to [//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page wikicommons] or integrating images with the text.
 * in order. I have no problem with galleries in articles about arthropods, it seems pretty standard and the inclusion of the gallery enhances the article and its removal would not be an improvement.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 13:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

* There should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 5 cm, use 5 cm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 5 cm.
 * Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * great job so far.

* Spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
 * The convert template produces Km rather than kilometres and where possible, I try to avoid using actual measurements and their conversions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * in order  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 12:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

* There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article. (If they are based on sources or quotations, then this comment doesn't really apply.)
 * Done some. Any more? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * in order  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 12:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

* Use either British or American English spellings.
 * Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), behaviour (B) (American:behavior), metre (B) (American: meter), defence (B) (American: defense), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), esophagus (A) (British: oesophagus), oesophagus (B) (American: esophagus), grey(B) (American: gray), moult (B) (American: molt).
 * We have aimed to use British English throughout. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * in order.   Bfpage &#124;leave a message 22:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise.
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * Ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work.
 * Comment - I suggest a request be made to the Copy Editors Guild, I have always gotten gracious and quick responses from these wonderful editors who seem pretty happy to go over an article with a fine-toothed comb looking for all the things they think are wrong.  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 13:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We could do this but I think it is not really necessary and that the CEG members can find better use of their time. Chiswick Chap has been on vacation and is due to return shortly (I think), and we will review the text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Seconded. If there are specific copy-edits you require then name them. We are both native speakers of English and accustomed to editing Wikipedia articles to GA and beyond. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * in order. The comment that the article go through a thorough copyediting came from the GA-javaScript bot who did the initial assessment of potential problems. I simply assumed that the script found something that needed attention, but I didn't see anything.  Copyediting to MOS guidelines is NOT my strongest point so I am going with your assessment on this.   Bfpage &#124;leave a message 12:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

More input from the "Peer reviewer" tool
*Duplication detector is the same as checking for copyvio's; a redundant check the article has already passed.
 * in order.  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 14:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambig links
 * in order.  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 14:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The good article criteria
Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

* a reviewer should have access to all of the source material : Is there a chance for me to see these sources online: ::* Cott, Hugh. (1940) Adaptive Coloration in Animals, Oxford University Press.
 * O'Toole, Christopher. (2002) Firefly Encyclopedia of Insects and Spiders, Firefly Books. ISBN 1-55297-612-2?
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 23:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So far as I know Cott is not available online, I have the book and can transcribe or scan passages if necessary. The book is authoritative in the field and can reasonably be accepted in good faith or consulted in any library. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * in order. Please don't trouble yourself about scanning anything for me.  I certainly do assume good faith in all your work.  I've other things you have written and you have reviewed some of my new articles.  We have come across each other in our editing and you have always demonstrated good faith.   Bfpage &#124;leave a message 12:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources
 * in order. articles created by the reviewer; you will see many articles on butterflies and moths that I have created which has led me to think that I do have sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 14:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

* Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source.
 * in order. There are no dead links,  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 00:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

* Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
 * in order.  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 01:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness
* The requirement for "comprehensiveness" for GA articles is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles.
 * Did you want my opinion on the "comprehensiveness" of the article? This determination is not necessary to decide whether the article is GA status. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;">  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 23:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your view on comprehensiveness would be useful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will wait until after the review and then let you know what I think about comprehensiveness after you get your GA status. I don't want to slow down the GA process pontificating on what I think could be improved.  You can have the opportunity at that time to consider my opinion or ignore it.  That way what I think about comprehensiveness will have no impact upon this assessment. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;">  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 12:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

* Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of non-constructive editing should be placed on hold.
 * in order. The editing history of the article shows that it is quite 'stable' and there appears to be a remarkable collaboration between contributing editors. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Bfpage &#124;leave a message 23:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
 * in order. Photos are lovely and enhance the article. I just found the podcast from the museum tour, what a wonderful touch, it most definitely brings this article up to a higher level.
 * <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Bfpage &#124;leave a message 14:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking on this review. Chiswick Chap and I had been working on several insect articles, getting them to GA standard - Bumblebee, Dragonfly and Damselfly - and this followed on. The locust aspect is particularly interesting and we decided we should also work on Locust in conjunction with Grasshopper. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are quite welcome, I am enjoying the process so far. Best Regards, <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;">  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 23:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Assessing the references
The article states: "Grasshoppers overcome this apparent contradiction by using a catapult mechanism to amplify the mechanical power[21] produced by their muscles." The reference is: This appears to be original research-applying physics equations from another wikipedia article to explain the forces behind the 'jump'.  Your thoughts could be right on and correct, but a better reference would be one coming from someone else who has written a piece on the mechanics and applied this 'research' to the jump of the grasshopper. Comments? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Bfpage &#124;leave a message 23:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The "Jumping" section was already in place when we started working on the article. Much of it is beyond my competence so I hesitate to alter it, but the section could be rewritten and abbreviated using other sources if you think it necessary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The equation was from the St Andrews source; I have added this to the ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

If you can, have another editor take a look and see if they believe that the application of physics equations from another Wikipedia article explaining the physics behind the jump, without any reference to the jump in the physics article, is original research. Or else take it out and find a better reference later.
 * Please see what I have added. The ref is to an external source from St Andrews University. I have removed the wikilink. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * completely resolved and in order. You have really worked with me on this and I appreciate your patience.  I have no problems with the new reference you have inserted and I think that it is better. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;">  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 17:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is a better link for reference - Thomas, F.; Schmidt-Rhaesa, A.; Martin, G.; Manu, C.; Durand, P. Renaud, F. (May 2002). "Do hairworms (Nematomorpha) manipulate the water seeking behaviour of their terrestrial hosts?". Journal of Evolutionary Biology (Blackwell Science Ltd.) 15 (3): 356–361. 35: better <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Bfpage &#124;leave a message 23:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * in order. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Bfpage &#124;leave a message 17:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Concerning this reference: Klein, Barrett A. (2012). "The Curious Connection Between Insects and Dreams". Insects 3: 1–17. doi:10.3390/insects3010001. I did not like how clicking on the reference automatically started a download of a pdf (probably harmless) by my browser (Chrome). I've not had that happen before when selecting a reference. I suggest that you remove the automatic download. Besides another section of this reference takes you to the full online version of this journal article. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Bfpage &#124;leave a message 00:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * in order. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Bfpage &#124;leave a message 17:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Concerning reference 47: This might be a better reference for your Travel Channel citation. Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern where grasshoppers are listed in descriptions of five of the shows aired. The current link to the Travel channel provides little information on grasshoppers, well none really. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Bfpage &#124;leave a message 00:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Have now cited a different source, but the Zimmern route is also possible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * in order. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Bfpage &#124;leave a message 17:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

References cited that require subscriptions or purchase
At this point in the review, I am not certain whether or not the references listed below require some qualifier that identifies them as 'not free', but I will look into it. It most certainly is not a problem that would keep the article from become GA. It is not possible for me to assess these references since I cannot access them. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Bfpage &#124;leave a message 00:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Petrie, Kristin (2010). Grasshoppers. ABDO. ISBN 978-1-61613-605-5.


 * Flook, P. K.; Rowell, C. H. F. (1997). "The Phylogeny of the Caelifera (Insecta, Orthoptera) as Deduced from mtrRNA Gene Sequences". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 8 (1): 89–103.


 * Burrows, M. (1995). "Motor patterns during kicking movements in the locust". Journal of Comparative Physiology A 176 (3): 289–305. doi:10.1007/BF00219055..


 * Schmidt-Rhaesa, Andreas; Biron, David G.; Joly, Cécile; Thomas, Frédéric (2005). "Host–parasite relations and seasonal occurrence of Paragordius tricuspidatus and Spinochordodes tellinii (Nematomorpha) in Southern France". Zoologischer Anzeiger 244 (1): 51–57. doi:10.1016/j.jcz.2005.04.002.


 * Lomer, C.J.; Bateman, R.P.; Johnson, D.L.; Langewald, J.; Thomas, M. (2001). "Biological Control of Locusts and Grasshoppers". Annual Review of Entomology 46: 667–702. doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.46.1.667..


 * in order. The instructions for the determination of a GA status for an article states that the reviewer is supposed to assess the appropriateness of the references used to support the statements in the article. I've come to realize that this really isn't possible unless I visit the library or you scan in documents, which just couldn't be the intentions of those who wrote the guidelines. So I guess I am documenting the fact that I haven't been able to assess all the references since I don't want to pay the $45 that some of these online journal providers want me to pay, visit the library or have you scan in the references for me to look at.  I would appreciate your thoughts on this.  If you haven't been able to tell by now, this is my first GA review and I want to thank you for making it easy for me with such a wonderful article.  I love all things buggy. I've loved grasshoppers since I was a little girl but I have, I believe, been able to maintain a NPOV throughout this assessment. It will take me a few tries, but I should have the template up for GA status by tomorrow.  I need one more day to do another read through.  Congratulations, and the Very Best of Regards, <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;">  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 17:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

General conclusions
As of the timestamp of this comment it appears that there will be few problems with this article achieving GA status. It is not necessary for me to have full access to all the references. They are quite varied and comprehensive. I especially appreciated the 'accessibility' of the article - I believe even elementary school students will be able to read and understand the information.

This article:


 * ...is well-written. It is is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, and words to watch.


 * ... is verifiable. There is one question regarding original research. The article contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline, all in-line citations are from reliable sources.


 * ...is broad in its coverage. It addresses the main aspects of the topic and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.


 * ... is neutral and it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.


 * ... stable and does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.


 * ... is illustrated and images are tagged with their copyright status. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.


 * <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Bfpage &#124;leave a message 01:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am pleased to see that it seems the article is close to passing the GA review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Assessment of the assessment
Once I get the GA template in place, I sincerely would like your ruthless critique of my assessment, especially since is my first. You may leave your thoughts on my talk page. With the Very Best of Regards,
 * <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Bfpage &#124;leave a message 17:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)