Talk:Hexapoda/GA1

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm really sorry about this as I can see that recent work has improved the article, but it remains very far from adequate, and I am therefore quick-failing it here. Key issues are as follows.

1) The sourcing is in many cases not suitable: it is to introductory materials like the Tree of Life website rather than to up-to-date peer-reviewed research for key aspects like the phylogeny.

2) The cladograms presented are little more than hypotheses; what is needed is evidence of what is known and what still has to be discovered.

3) A taxonomy section merely listed the orders of insects, whereas what is needed here is an analysis of the classes or major groups of Hexapoda, of which the insects are one.

4) Coverage of the fossil history is required, but is almost entirely absent, barring a mention of the Silurian split from the Anostraca (the birth of the Hexapoda), i.e. there is no history of the group's evolution after that point. This needs to be described and cited to reliable research sources, and illustrated with suitable photographs.

5) The section on Morphology is closest to being satisfactory, but is unillustrated, and it is certainly the kind of material that would benefit from some clear diagrams and probably photographs also to illustrate similarities and differences between the different hexapod classes or groups.

6) It would be desirable to compare the segmentation with that of other arthropods - there is an obvious connection to evolutionary developmental biology with the divergent specialisations of the segments and appendages that needs to be brought out.

7) There is nothing on the ways of life of the various hexapods, beyond the mention in the lead that the Collembola are terrestrial.

The article will need substantial rewriting and reliable sources before it is ready for GA review. I hope these brief notes will be of some use to editors interested in improving the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)