Talk:Hemiptera/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shyamal (talk · contribs) 07:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I will need to re-examine books and sources (despite having studied entomology many years ago) - so please bear with me.
 * Thanks. Cwmhiraeth and I will respond in due course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Structure
Lead
 * Needs more organization - best to clarify terms, describe and then go on to diversity and biology
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems to focus on human interaction and does not cover insect-plant interactions
 * Added paragraph on biology. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Sections
 * need organization - the life-cycle subsections are a seemingly odd mix of feeding modes, reproduction and locomotion/habitat - an evolutionary/chronological approach would help in many cases
 * Separated life-cycle, ecology, locomotion sections. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * herbivory alone involves a lot more than the one sentence at present
 * Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Still missing evolutionary insight here - what about matching the modes with the evolution of vascular plants. Also missing feeding mechanism (cibarial pumps), water relations, recruiting ant defence. Xylem and phloem sap are mentioned, what do bugs feed on? I think this needs more reading of tertiary and secondary sources for a coherent structure. Try for instance  apart from insect encylopedias
 * this this this
 * Used most of these. Mentioned likely Devonian age of association using the ref. Feeding and ant protection are discussed in article. Pompon's rather specialised mention of sap mixing has been given a brief mention - I think we are going rather far into detail in some aspects here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As I see it, high level evolutionary trends are about the only things at the rank of order that is not in theory repeated in lower rank taxon articles. Shyamal (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting rule. Clearly an order-level article can't cover as much detail as that in all lower articles or they'd all be redundant. An alternate view would be that higher level articles should only cover things that are common to all or most, with interesting examples to illustrate group diversity. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ecological roles has subsections on feeding modes and then a subsection called "aquatic" - the entire article should be examined for structure and it would be best to follow an established pattern
 * Grouped the feeding modes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder if a locomotion section is warranted - that could cover the aquatic modes, adaptations, leaping, flying, Marangoni propulsion and sedentary modes of Sternorrhyncha females
 * Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * predation section - some notes on digestions see this for instance
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * the parasitic mode seems to be inaccurate, haematophagy would be more accurate - Reduviidae are a huge group and taking very specific examples only leads to regional bias - many are considered predators.
 * I have removed the word parasitic, although it is used in some sources, and expanded this section a little. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Since "parasitic" is in common usage, I've re-added it in quotation marks, with haematophagy mentioned prominently. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * the taxonomy section should include some history and cover terms like "rhynchota" that people are looking for (see talk page)
 * I see the term "Rhynchota" is used in the Dutch language Wikipedia which has the structure - Superordine: Paraneoptera, Sezione: Rhynchotoidea, Ordine: Rhynchota, Subordine: Heteroptera Family: Pentatomidae for the stink bugs and shield bugs, while we have - Order: Hemiptera, Suborder: Heteroptera, Infraorder: Pentatomorpha, Family: Pentatomidae. So the term refers to an alternative classification system, but we do not have the specialist books to deal with these taxonomic intricacies, and my search online was unhelpful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is some nice history on the Rhynchota here, also see this - I can provide some sources if you want them and there is also WP:RX
 * Used the Forero ref, thanks. The section now has a brief history of the systematics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * the cladogram indicates that Auchenorrhyncha is non-monophyletic based on 2012 analysis while (2013) indicates monophyly
 * Added description and ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources
 * Some of the key sources need to be examined - McGavin GC (1993) Bugs of the world; Schuh RT, Slater JA (1995) True bugs of the world (Hemiptera – Heteroptera): classification and natural history; Wheeler AG Jr (2001) Biology of the plant bugs.
 * Thank you for taking on this review. I will get on to the points you raise shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Added extraoral digestion from Wheeler, and other facts from many other sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Additional items

 * sound production, vibratory communication being widespread - not covered
 * Added paragraph. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Nothing on the filter chamber, malphigian tubule evolution and wax production
 * Added details of all of these. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Do they have predators, parasites and environmental threats?
 * Added section on predators and antipredator/antiparasite defences; also one on threats. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What defenses do they have (toxicity, aggregation, crypsis, flight - polymorphism in aphids), diapause, migration
 * Added section on predators and antipredator defences, describing a variety of mechanisms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this is about done now? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Checklist
This now meets the GA criteria. Thanks for the work done. Shyamal (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Thank you very much for the thorough review, which has greatly improved the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)