Talk:Thermonectus marmoratus

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 April 2019 and 7 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gghanem8. Peer reviewers: Ssarnthi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

As pets
These beetles are remarkably easy to keep in captivity. They will not try to leave the water. A cheap vase from a thrift store (clear glass) and a water plant from a tropical fish store with LED illumination is all you need to make a desk ornament. (Then you have to catch the beetles, of course.) They do eat fish food. Once they are well-fed and established, they will disappear (hide) and stay underwater for more than an hour at a time. They also eat any kind of insect that happens to fall in the water. When well-fed, they will play with food, stealing it from one another like birds but not eating it. From observing them, I hypothesize that they have some way to tell the other beetles of their species that food is present, either by underwater sounds or a pheromone. This helps to explain the "swarming a prey item" mentioned in the article; they are somewhat social. I also suggest that their bite is poisonous to insects, because as soon as they bite an insect that falls in the water, the prey stops moving. 173.174.85.204 (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Eric

Peer Review
Lead section:

Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?

→ I think your lead is a very good introduction, I would maybe leave the specifics of the eyes out for the vision section rather than mentioning it here? The third sentence is lengthy and long/ sounds almost run-on so I would either split it or rewrite it. I really liked how you included the bit about the first ever recorded use of bifocal technology as it draws interest. If you want to keep the little tidbit about the eye, I would suggest mentioning this first before going into details. Overall, I feel that the lead sums up the article nicely and is intriguing.

Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?

→ I feel that the lead is thoroughly comprehensive of the contents of the article and addresses the major topics covered in the article.

Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?

→ As mentioned before, I feel like the emphasis on the eye is good but need to be reworded/ simplified for the lead. Nothing is missing unless you wanted to write more specifically where they're found and their development in the lead as well though I don't find that completely necessary. No redundancy noted, overall well-written and structured.

Structure:

Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?

→ I think the sections are well written within themselves and sensible in order, however, I think that the distribution section and diet section would have made more sense right underneath the physical description as it is more general information and would flow well into development and in turn the use of their retina. It is a minor change but I feel that it will help the article flow better.

Coverage:

Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?

→ I think the sections are definitely not equal in length but I understand that it must be difficult to find sources/ information. I would brush up on the distribution section by maybe mentioning more about the habitats and the role of the beetle in its niche. I also think you can definitely expand on the rest of the article i.e. not focusing only on the eyes of the beetle but also mentioning other aspects of the beetle that might be of interest. Overall, I feel that the sections themselves are well written, but there is definitely room to expand.

Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?

→ Yes, I think you did a good job incorporating multiple sources and making them more readable/ understandable for a more general audience.

Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

→ No, overall, the article had a neutral tone and content

Sources:

Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?

→I think overall you did a great job incorporating sources and summarizing them in a more readable way. I don't have any suggestions for improvements in this area as you have already done a good job.

Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.

→ none!

Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references?

→ none!

Ssarnthi (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC) Ssarnthi (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC) Ssarnthi (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC) Ssarnthi (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC) Ssarnthi (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC) Ssarnthi (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssarnthi (talk • contribs) 20:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Ssarnthi, thank you for the suggested edits. I have incorporated all of them into the changes for the article. The vision section in the introduction has been tidied up. The distribution section and diet section have been moved to a more appropriate position below the physical description. I believe this has indeed increased the flow of the article. I will try to keep up to date on new literature published regarding this organism, and will update the page with more information as more studies become available. Your edits were extremely helpful in clarifying the content of the page to a general audience, thank you! Gghanem8 (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)