Talk:Beetle/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Shyamal (talk · contribs) 03:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I hope to review this but seeing the breadth of the subject, I will need to take time to examine literature and compare with the article text. Will need time and multiple runs, so please bear with me. Shyamal (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. This is certainly a case where the GA test to cover the "main points" is clearly distinct from the FA's comprehensiveness. We've made a serious attempt at the former. Zakhx150 and Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I am sure "main points" is always a point of contention - I doubt anyone can ever approach "comprehensiveness" in this particular case. Here are some points from a quick run (I have made some edits on the way which I hope are acceptable)

Absolutely. Thank you very much.

• "Beetles are found in nearly all natural habitats" - this leads to the reader asking what about "artificial habitats" and finding a gap.

Fixed.

• Anatomy illustration - Should be "Corpora allata" not just "Corpora", "Ganglia" (plural) points to just one "Ganglion" (singular)

Corrected image.

• "Conflict can play a part in the mating rituals of species such as burying beetles (Nicrophorus), where conflicts between males and females rage until only one of each is left, thus ensuring reproduction by the strongest and fittest" - I think this is badly written and appears to be confusing "competition" with "conflict"

Fixed.

• " In some species, the pupa may go through all four forms during its development, called hypermetamorphosis" Something is terribly wrong here - please check your sources.

It's already covered under Larva, deleting the nonsense.

• "Another way beetles find mates is by producing light, bioluminescence. This special kind of mating call " - please check the linked article and whether the terminology used is appropriate.

Reworded.

• Structure - I think Behaviour and ecology cannot be separated the way it has been done - this leads to such problems as the parental care section missing the classic example of "ambrosia beetles" but it is then covered in the ecology section under eusociality. This needs a rethink.

There's no "right" answer to this, as anatomy, physiology, behaviour, and ecology are all intimately related. Moved "Eusociality" to "Behaviour" where it fits nicely beside "Parental care".

More topics

• There are lots of other bits that one finds missing at a quick glance - for instance I found no mention of fog harvesting desert beetles; no mention in human uses for science - such as the use of tiger beetles as indicator species; beetles used in weed control; Not enough on the coloration of beetles; Not enough mention of beetle groups where the elytra are soft and cases in which the elytra are highly reduced - also flightless and wingless beetles; no mention of key morphological variations used in taxonomy - tarsal formulae, not enough coverage on antennal variations and classification.

• Fog harvesting: Added to Extreme environments section.
• Human uses for science: Added use of Cicindelidae as indicators.
• Weed control: Added mention of ground beetles predating weed seeds (Rothamsted).
• Coloration: Added section headings for camouflage, mimicry/aposematism; added image, description, wikilinks.
• Soft elytra: Added leatherwings to Wings section. Added net-winged beetle reference.
• Highly reduced elytra: added mention of rove beetle structure and locomotion.
• Flightless, wingless: in Wings section.
• Tarsal formulae in taxonomy: added mention of ID features, wl and explain tarsal formula.
• Types of antennae: new image, mentioned, wikilinked in Head section. Expanded on examples of different uses.

Pausing for Breath

Well that's a lot of changes made in a short time to this article. Mostly Chiswick Chap's fine work, but worth a quick breather and a re-read of the whole thing I think. Shyamal any thoughts? Zakhx150 (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• I am working on it - and I have added some more bits that I saw as missing (key group characters) - I would highly recommend the introductory section in a major recent work - Lawrence, John F.; Ślipiński, Adam (2013). Australian Beetles. Morphology, Classification and Keys. CSIRO. ISBN 9780643097285.

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Beetles and conservation - do check New, T.R. (2010). Beetles in conservation. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 9781444332599.

Good idea, and fine source too. Added a section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• I would think beetles as an inspiration is worthy of inclusion as a section in the Relationship to humans - suggestions

Probably just covered this in the new In conservation section, which discusses the importance of public attitudes.

Not quite the biomimetic examples I had suggested above.

Chiswick Chap has expanded on this and I've now added in some extra stuff on cyborg adaptions.Zakhx150 (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Adaptations to harsh environmental conditions - migration, hibernation, aestivation

Started this, more to include I think.Zakhx150 (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Cenozoic section - "Today's beetle species developed in the Paleogene and Neogene" - this needs a rewrite and better sources.

Rewritten and cited.

• I would like a double-check of the source used here "For example, the Tenebrionid beetle Onymacris rugatipennis can withstand 50°C,[1] with the help of an antifreeze protein" - I do not have access to the source.

Good catch. I've added the source URL and a quote: the sentence was long ago garbled, with 2 diff. beetles, one desert, one Arctic. Now unscrambled. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks due there.Zakhx150 (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Would be good to include the range of life-cycle durations.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I added larval lifespans.

• Powell, Jerry A. (2009). "Coleoptera". In Vincent H. Resh; Ring T. Cardé (eds.). Encyclopedia of Insects (2nd ed.). Academic Press. pp. 1132, 183–201. ISBN 978-0-12-374144-8. - my copy of this book says the Coleoptera entry is by Joseph V McHugh and James K. Liebherr. Can you please check - I added page numbers 183-201. The total number of pages in the book is about 1132!

Fixed.

[98] and many other still says "Powell"

Sorted.

• Consistent formatting - please check the variable use of single quotes and double quotes, use of semicolons, capitals etc.

Suppressed scare quotes, checked punctuation, caps.

• Reference formatting - please check that all are suitable formatted - it aids automated maintenance greatly.

Fixed several formatting errors. All refs seem to be in proper citation templates.

• There are about three dead-links - but none of them are great references anyway and could well be substituted by scholarly alternatives.

All marked as dead links have archive URLs.

• Would be nice to have a better image layout - but I am not sure that will last for long and in any case not a GA criterion.
• Would be nice to have an illustrated version of beetle families and antennae diversity.
• Would be good to have the images verified for taxonomic identifications or to choose images from places where they have been carefully identified - I had to remove several Mylabris (should be Hycleus) which were incorrect but that is a widespread problem even in museum collections.

Many thanks for these suggestions, and for the careful review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

From a perspective of someone who studied entomology formally two decades ago, I think this is fair coverage with reasonable sources. I generally prefer printed books or journal references that aid serious article viewers rather than web page content that are mostly aimed at article reviewers to check correctness of statements.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: