Talk:Tabanidae/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shyamal (talk · contribs) 07:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Will review this. Please give me some time. I will be revisiting the article many times.
 * Thanks. Cwmhiraeth and I will respond in due course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead

 * Not sure if this is the best start, sounds more like a dictionary
 * Redrafted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Gadflies ..." - very disconnected bit.
 * Reworded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Horse-flies are vectors for blood-borne diseases ..." sounds a bit alarmist - that they can transmit blood-borne diseases would be a more accurate introduction
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "... through pursuit and constant observation" - unable to find the details on "constant observation"
 * Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Section order

 * Does not appear to be well-planned
 * Grouped and reordered. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Diversity - "The Tabanidae are true flies and members of the insect order Diptera". Probably better in description.
 * Moved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Taxonomy - "The "Blue Tail Fly" in the eponymous song was probably the ". Probably better in "In literature" or perhaps as "In culture".
 * Moved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Description does not cover other stages
 * The description of eggs and larvae appear in the Reproduction section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is too elementary and the larval description is missing basic features like the siphon. Please examine the sources suggested.


 * List of genera - unsourced and incomplete even at the subfamily level
 * ref ITIS; subfamilies as listed there; incertae mentioned. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Scepsidinae needs some mention at least as historic classification. I think the tribes also need mention and the general characters used for separation need to go in. Nothing on Tabanid venation at the moment. The general position within the Tabanomorpha and relations to Rhagionidae, Pelecorhynchidae need to go in.
 * It is very difficult adding information on these subfamilies and tribes without specialist literature to which we do not have access. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can offer you these sources - have linked some below.
 * I think ITIS is grossly incomplete and should not be treated as a reliable source for this group. I have run through this catalogue and it is so much better that I would recommend using it or drop the idea of having a genus list.
 * Having looked at the source you have suggested, which is a lot more comprehensive, I propose dropping the genus list completely, especially as there are so many incertae sedis and "unplaced questionable", though we could have a more complete subfamily list. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree - an article at the rank of family should deal with the systematics of its position especially its immediate parent, siblings and immediate child ranks. Shyamal (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Gallery section

 * Needs removal
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sampling methods - traps (malaise trap variants, baits) needed
 * Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Nothing on fossil tabanids see Grimaldi and Engel and this
 * Added a paragraph. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Cold bloodsucking" and "Warm .." - probably needs the use of hyphens
 * Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing

 * A major work on the Tabanidae is by J. Moucha and this does not even find mention here.
 * Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * John Chainey has several excellent overview chapters in secondary and tertiary sources - see -- mail me if you want a copy


 * The Zebra story can do with a little more - there is a more recent review in http://wfcb.ucdavis.edu/files/8214/1278/2606/The_function_of_zebra_stripes.pdf
 * Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * GBIF is not a reliable source for the family authorship even though it is correct in this case (some older works indicate Leach, 1819)
 * replaced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking on this review. I will get on to the points you raise, but when we have visitors, as at present, I no longer have free access to my computer. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Specific statements
(for after structure reorganization based on tertiary/secondary sources )


 * If horsefly is being used in the sense of tabanid - then I think statements like "Horse-flies and deer flies are found ..." need to be avoided.
 * Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "clegs" is used only for Haematopotini and this might be mentioned, also misses other names like green-heads
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Taxonomy section needs rework and expansion - check http://www.sunyjcc.edu/hurisuri/sites/default/files/ILLJMedEnt.pdf after tertiary and secondary sources have been examined
 * Description - missing structural details of empodium, venation and larval characters
 * Partly done, I will continue. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Diversity - scope of section unclear
 * Agree; merged with Description where it works better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "In spite of their roles as pests... are important pollinators ..." - "pest" is not an ecological definition, it is an economic and anthropocentric one and so cannot be compared with an ecological role.
 * Redrafted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Both genera give their names to subfamilies." - this is a bit loose, and is not a coincidence. If we want to indicate type genera, then it should be indicated throughout although it is generally quite obvious to most biologists.
 * Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The article is much improved now. I think some of the sources need to be evaluated more carefully - the following are not the most reliable sources / copies. My offer to help you with sources holds (as part of this review I have made a fairly large collection):
 * http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/species/notch-horned-cleg-fly - see Chainey for names
 * This is a serious source which is not likely to be wrong on this (simple) point. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * http://www.yankeemagazine.com/article/features/greenheads#_ - see Chainey for names
 * This publication is not likely to be wrong about this common name. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * http://www.gbif.org/species/116886393 - an aggregator site that is not considered reliable by most zoologists
 * replaced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * http://www2.ca.uky.edu/entomology/entfacts/ef511.asp - better to use a source that has good citation practice - see any of the Tabanidae reviews (Chainey etc)
 * This is a serious secondary/tertiary source by a reputable professional in the field, on the entomology website of a university with a reputation to protect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * http://www.gbif.org/species/1495261 - an aggregator site that is not considered reliable by most zoologists
 * replaced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * http://www.bumblebee.org/invertebrates/DipteraA.htm
 * This is a decent secondary/tertiary source from a serious organisation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * http://www.summagallicana.it/Agassiz_nomenclator_zoologicus/Diptera.htm This is an unreliable transcription of a book - better versions can be found in other places - example https://archive.org/stream/nomenclatorzoolo00agas#page/n15/mode/2up
 * replaced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to comment on the choice of resources. It is not just about whether the information is correct, it is about whether the best source for the information has been used. It is the care taken in research that matters. The way I think it should be seen is whether an entomologist would use this source in a review article. My point is that there are better sources for such facts and they ought to be used in preference to a site, however serious, that does not cite any sources. For colloquial terms, a good dictionary would be an ideal source. Shyamal (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a fine attitude to research, but it goes beyond the requirement for Good Articles, which simply calls for a reliable source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Citation formats + layout

 * Please ensure that all books and journals are properly cited with the templates with at least the following parameters - unfortunately the citation bot is defunct
 * journal - authors, year, title, journal, volume, issue, pages, optional - doi, and url if free version differs from doi-link
 * checked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * book - authors, year, title/chapter, pages, publisher, place, optional url/isbn
 * Done. (We aren't using place.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * websites - include accessdate (not needed for non-mutable sources like book / journal)
 * They all did. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Also check if all images are pertinent, beside the text associated and have useful and interesting captions, try zig-zag layouts, avoid flowing into the references area
 * checked and adjusted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

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

This now meets the GA criteria Thanks for the work undertaken Shyamal (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)