Talk:Spotted lanternfly/GA1

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

Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 23:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I will undertake this review. Should have comments here in the next few days. Esculenta (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, here are some initial thoughts. I tend to be a nitpicky reviewer, and some of my comments might go beyond the bare minimum GA-criteria, so take these as friendly suggestions rather than obligations! I haven't looked at sources yet; will do that in a later read.Esculenta (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Esculenta, I have finished the first rounds of edits. I tried to incorporate your recommendations as best I could (If there was any issue, I put a note below). I know that not all of them were necessary but the article looks substantially better with all the new content. I also reorganized a couple of sections to cut down on excessive headers. For the images, I added a different template for aesthetic purposes and incorporated 4 images. For the links, I gave it a solid attempt but there are likely 1 or 2 I missed. I will likely need to C/E this a little bit still to iron out all the nuances but that will have to wait till tomorrow (as it is getting late in my part of the world). Please send any more feedback on the article if you have it. Etriusus (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Lead
 * ✅ the well-known countries shouldn’t be linked per MOS:OVERLINK
 * ✅ host, introduced should be linked, as well as the names in the author citations in the taxobox
 * I think I did this properly, may need clarification. The phrasing was a bit strange.


 * ✅ the redlinks of the two mystery predators are jarring and make the lead less reader-friendly by introducing extra Latin words that few will understand. What kinds of pathogens are those?
 * ✅ currently, too much emphasis is placed on invasive pest in the US aspect. The lead says nothing about, for example, its life cycle or what it looks like. It should be a better balanced summary of the article contents. (see WP:LEAD)
 * Made an attempt, cut down on the invasive section substantially, and made it more general. Added basic life cycle and host information.


 * ✅ this sentence has some grammatical problems: “Ongoing pest control efforts have sought to limit population growth and prevent further spread due to the threat L. delicatula possess the United States' and Canada's grape, fruit tree, and logging industries.”


 * ✅ Taxonomy and/or Systematics
 * ✅ section currently missing; should have something here to meet GA criteria #3a ("it addresses the main aspects of the topic")
 * ✅ if it was originally Aphaena, why is it now Lycorma?
 * ✅ what’s the story with those subspecies? Who published them and when? Are they still considered taxonomically valid?
 * ✅ what does deliculata mean? Why was that epithet applied to this species? How about jole and operosa?
 * ✅ any story with the synonym Aphaena operosa Walker, 1858? Who says this is a synonym? (a citation should be in the "synonyms_ref" parameter in taxobox)
 * ✅ has any molecular phylogenetic work been done with this species? Do we know its closest relative(s)?
 * ✅ might want to mention it was originally collected by George Tradescant Lay, and maybe a few words about what White said about it for interest. For example, he discusses the difficulty in capturing them, and mentions a resemblance to Aphaena variegata (is that still a valid species?)
 * Added a taxonomy section. I tried to hit most of the points on here as well as I could. There was limited information I could find. Technically, the name change from Aphaena to deliculata was descriptive since the subfamily is Aphaeninae and therefore still related fairly closely. I did find a year and also confirm that the subspecies are still valid (L. Deliculata is a collective term for the species as a whole).


 * ✅ Description
 * ✅ ”The spotted lanternfly is originally native to parts of China, India, Vietnam, and Taiwan.” - shouldn’t be in the description; rather it should be in a separate section or subsection where its native range is discussed (see comment below)
 * ✅ ”and measuring about 25 mm (0.98 inches) long and 12 mm (0.47 inches) wide.” its a bit jarring to have a measurement described as “about”, and then give two significant figures in the convert output; try 25 mm long and 12 mm wide
 * ✅ ”It was originally described by Adam White in 1845 as Aphaena delicatula with habitat outside of Nankin, China.” this should be in the missing taxonomy section
 * ✅ ”Adult lanternflies have a black head and gray-brown forewings adorned with the eponymous black spots.” I don’t understand how the word “eponymous” fits here.
 * ✅ suggested links: abdomen, valvifer, distal, gravid
 * ✅ no mention of the orange antennae? the hemelytra? How many spots on a wing? (all this info available in White's original description)
 * since the spotted lanternfly is a true bug, the forewings and hemelytra are the same thing.


 * ✅ ”In traditional Chinese medicine, the spotted lanternfly is believed to be poisonous, and is used topically for relief from swelling.” should not be in a description section; link TCM
 * ✅ in general, the links throughout should be tightened; there are several duplicate links, and some instances where a linked word should have been linked earlier (e.g. host)
 * ✅ are there other insects with which this species might readily be confused? How different is it from the other members of its genus?
 * I found a few anecdotes here and there but nothing that is encyclopedic enough to add. I've settled on a happy medium of listing its most closely related species in the taxonomy section.


 * ✅ Host associations, Life cycle & others
 * ✅ suggested links: photosynthesis, molting, metabolite, overwintering, fitness
 * ”Whether the lanternfly can complete its life cycle on any host other than A. altissima is unclear, and further experiments are planned in the US.” this is sourced to a 2009 Korean study (I think; it’s the next following citation), suggesting perhaps these experiments have already been done?
 * ✅ fix ”L. delicatula has been theorized to be capable of maintained a small population in the region although no specimen have yet been discovered.”
 * ✅ ”The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture has been recommending based on information from PennState Extension:” reads awkwardly. I think the entire first paragraph would read better if it wasn’t numbered, but instead converted to smooth prose.
 * ✅ links: insecticidal soap, sticky trap, vector
 * ✅ the abbreviation PDA should be introduced on first use of the abbreviated term
 * ✅ ”Unfortunately, in lab settings” The first word is editorializing, which should be avoided in encyclopaedic writing.
 * ✅ Dryinus sinicus and Ooencyrtus kuvanae should be linked, and it would be nice to know what kind of pathogens they are (insects? fungi? predaceous Tardigrades?)
 * ❌”it is being investigated in South Korea” not really correct wording for a publication that appeared in 2016
 * While yes this one study was done in 2016, the implication is that the research is still ongoing, as implied by the conclusions section of the sourced articles.


 * ✅ Japan is mentioned in the second sentence of the lead as a place where it has been introduced, but is not mentioned again in the rest of the article.
 * ✅ the external links section is longish and should be culled; some links are already being used as sources, and at least 1 returns a 404; some of them might not meet WP:ELNO #1
 * ✅ so the insect is native to China, India, Vietnam, but the article is mostly slanted towards its global existence outside of these countries. Do the Chinese/Indians/Vietnamese also view this insect as a pest, and have they suffered economic losses from it? Any interesting cultural depictions or symbology?
 * Done to the best of my ability. There is relatively little evidence, and what exists is somewhat contradictory, that the bug is even native to countries outside of China. I've fixed the other sections to reflect this.


 * ✅ the lead says the insect is native to parts of China, India, and Vietnam, but the article does not tell me these parts. China, in particular, is a big place.
 * ✅ And then someconsider combining the two similar infestation pictures into a double image (see template:multiple image, which would leave room for another of the excellent images available on Commons (e.g. this)

Looking good! I took the liberty of doing some copyediting and added some links, but feel free to revert anything you don't agree with. Since you asked for more feedback, I dug into some other sources to see what might be missing. The www.cabi.org seems to have quite a few details about its description, distribution, biology and ecology that aren't in the Wikipedia article and maybe should be; please have a look. What do you think about adding some stuff from these sources? Esculenta (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Esculenta, thanks for all the extra content. I will begin adding it to the article within the coming week. Is there anything else that needs to be done for the GAN? Etriusus (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ ? This has some interesting taxonomic history, the meaning of its Chinese and Korean vernacular names, and more information about its introduction in Korea, etc.
 * ✅ this source discusses the most effective traps to catch them
 * ✅ indicates another two species of fungi that can infect the insect
 * ✅ using “detection dogs” to find egg masses during overwintering
 * ✅ what do you think about adding Figure 1. from this work into the wikipedia article? It perfectly illustrates the sizes of the life cycles, and it's public domain because its US-government created.
 * ✅ use of infrared thermography to detect spotted lanternflies in the field
 * ✅ a detailed biomechanical study on how these insects fall, land, and right themselves!
 * ✅ the modelling used in this study suggests that the insect has potential for range expansion in Australia

Hi Etriusus, we're getting to the end. Here's some more comments. Esculenta (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Esculenta, Done. Kicking the article back to you.Etriusus (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ the taxobox indicates that the species has a “temporal range” dating back to the Ypresian, which is sourced to a paper on fossil ants. I can’t access this paper; could you please check to see if it actually supports the temporal assertion? If so, it should probably be mentioned in the article as well.
 * Found a substantially better source, swapped them out. I underestimated the Herculean task this would become, lol. The original article sorta worked but I found something much more concrete.


 * ✅ the subspecies are now mentioned in the text, but it doesn’t say what characteristics these taxa have, nor if they are currently used or still considered taxonomically valid. The authors of the subspecies should be given in the taxobox.
 * So I cannot find any sources explicitly describing the physical differences between the subspecies. A few sources imply that it may be based upon distribution but since the native range of Lycorma delicatula is difficult to map due to its rapid expansion, I have elected to not include it for the sake of avoiding confusion. Taxobox is fixed.
 * Also, do you want me to explicitly state that the subspecies are taxonomically valid, or did you just want me to double-check? I added an extra citation that says they were valid, and the classification was reviewed and kept validated in 2015.
 * That's good, thanks. Esculenta (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ I think the description should mention the size difference between adult male and females. What does the posterior end of the male look like? How much of its 1-year lifespan does the insect spend in the adult stage?
 * ✅ there's some details about reproductive biology in the Cabi site that should be included, eg., courtship & copulation; eggs undergoing diapause, then requiring 2 weeks of warm weather; longer-overwintering eggs having better synchronous hatching & better hatch rates
 * Cabi link: [] (this is for my own reference) Etriusus (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ many of the citations lack important bibliographic details, like publication date, authors, etc. I added these for the “Taxonomy and discovery section” per here; could you check the rest?

I offer a couple of final nits as I promote the article:
 * ”In 1863, the species was reclassified as Lycorma delicatula delicatula, with two additional subspecies described:” the taxobox suggests that Lycorma delicatula operosa was described in 1858, not 1863
 * "systemic pesticides" should gloss a definition for this; had to search around a bit to find out what this meant


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Prose is fine; article broadly meets standards of MOS.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Sources are reliable, and appropriate for this type of article; several were checked against the statements they supported with no issues found.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Article has broad coverage with appropriate level of details.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Yes
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Yes
 * 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):
 * All images have licenses making them available for use in this article, they are used appropriately, and have useful captions.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Article passes GA review. Good work! Esculenta (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)