Talk:Fly/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shyamal (talk · contribs) 08:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Please give me a few days. Shyamal (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for improving the contents of the article. Before I get into details, I would like to comment on the overall structure and referencing of the article.

General comments

• The cladograms appear to be taking a rather greater amount of space than needed. While it is nicely illustrated, I feel that it is really too distracting to have it so large. The high-level phylogeny (which you call as "external relationships") is much more easy to grasp if it is compact. I also think it would be useful to include other common insects that have names ending in -fly (stonefly, dragonfly) simply because the average person does not know that there is a specific meaning to "true flies" (also why the "true" is used).

I have added some additional information, but cladograms are not my thing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, we could collapse the internal relationships cladogram (with a "Show" button, but since it gives an overview of the variety of Diptera it's quite a useful item even for beginners. We have mentioned or illustrated several other -flies, including dragonflies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• The phylogeny section may need to have a little more of discussion on alternate proposals. The situation is not marked in stone and it would be good to cover it with a historic background - this would avoid such potentially confusing bits as beginning with a "Diptera is traditionally broken down into two suborders" and then going on to put Brachycera within the Nematocera.

I have added some additional information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• The evolution section is missing a readable narrative - I was looking for what kinds of life-histories the primitive flies had - were they saprophytic, associated with flowers or living on other animals - what is the kind of diversity of feeding etc. (see for example doi:10.1093/ee/16.4.847)

Added some further information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• I think that an ecology section with various nutritional guilds and life histories is well worth having.

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomenclature: Diptera

So one editor, working under a pseudonym, took it upon himself to turn the contents of the Diptera page into a redirect in spite of concerns expressed on its talk page. One obvious one, that also occurred to me, is what about mosquitos and gnats: hardly trivial, but not even me ntioned in the first paragraph here (at the time of writing). Cwmhiraeth has made some good observations on size of cladograms, etc.: is there any reason why the Diptera page shouldn't be reinstated, to cover the taxonomy, basic biology, etc. of this important insect order?

At the heart of this is the dumbed-down inference that "Diptera means flies" and I am beginning to think that WP policy is flawed. Botanists do not have this problem because the guidance is different. Roy Bateman (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• The cultural section begins rather abruptly with "In the traditional Navajo religion, Big Fly is an impobrtant spirit being"

Smoother lead in added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• do we know what they eat I need to know for a project 73.55.143.135 (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Bubblelover06 pls go to blo6.net

• I think there are a lot more cultural materials to include - Vincent Dethier's classic book finds no mention, Ogden Nash's poem, Beelzebub, phraseology, idiom, metaphors (fly on the wall) and so on. The idea of using blood from a mosquito preserved in amber is the source for creating a lot of terrifying science-fiction.

@Chiswick Chap: I'm hoping that Chiswick Chap is going to deal with the cultural section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm away from my desk until Monday, but will see what I can do. I've added Beelzebub, Aeschylus and Shakespeare, and Dethier, and risked mentioning popular culture with both fly-on-the-wall and the idea of using fossilised diptera to, er, recreate dinosaurs. That's probably enough! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Diversity - I think it would be natural for users to want to find things like the range of sizes here.

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Unclear about this sentence - "For detailed anatomy, the Anatomical Atlas of Flies gives examples from the four major fly groups (Lower Diptera, Lower Brachycera, Acalyptrate, Calyptrate) representing different anatomical expressions." - it seems like something that should be an external link.

Removed from body of text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Referencing: "The Evolutionary Biology of Flies" is not used here - it is a major source and should ideally be cited page by page for quite a lot of content. Also similarly - "Diptera Diversity: Status, Challenges and Tools". A quick check on Google Scholar shows that some very high impact (highly cited) works also need to be examined - doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.44.1.397. Also doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.42.1.73 this

I have added some information using the first two sources you mention here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• A bit on flight would be useful, perhaps as a section - this could include notes on accuracy of flight, control (as in Syrphidae), escape, vision and reflexes - also a bit on the myth of the deer fly (Cephenemyia).

added some, and I see you have added more, thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• A bit on the senses, more on vision (role of ocelli) - something on tasting with feet - "tarsal chemoreception diptera" on Google Scholar has quite a bit. Hearing - some Tachinidae can hear their host orthoptera. doi:10.1007/s00435-007-0043-3

Added a bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• A bit of dipteran defences and protection? - we have some on use of flight already but not on mimicry.

Added a section and image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• I have added various bits that I found missing - feel free to edit my additions, some of them might need to be rearranged or the article sections and scope could be slightly rejigged. I can also help you with any of the sources that I cited.

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• I will get into finer detail once you can review the above and make some changes, I think there are quite a lot of gaps that need to be addressed.

Thank you. I will work on the points you raise but I would point out that the GA criterion 3a states that the article should be "Broad in its coverage, addressing the main aspects of the topic". There is no requirement to be comprehensive as there is for a featured article, see this page, "A featured article must be comprehensive; a good article must be broad. The "comprehensive" standard requires that no major fact or detail is omitted; the "broad" standard merely requires coverage of the main points." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in the above suggestions I am only looking at broad coverage not comprehensiveness. This is best achieved by looking at good secondary/tertiary sources (eg. insect encyclopaedias and introductory sections of regional faunas) for an overview and then key and recent journal sources as well. I will try and send you useful source texts that I have access to by email. I am happy to give up the review to someone else if you feel that I am being too stringent. Shyamal (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we have covered most of the points you raised now. Is it looking any better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks better but a bit more to go. Takes me some time to examine the literature I have at hand and compare the article coverage. Shyamal (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• The review is nearly done - please do a careful reading and check for cohesion of sentences in paragraphs and structure. It might need a bit of reorganization.

Citations used

• Is BugGuide the best source for naming convention? What about other insect encyclopaedias?

I think it is a reasonable source for the general information being discussed here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comstock reference needs formatting, page number

Done. Authorlinked too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Antliophora family membership needs better reference than the website used

Are you referring to the "Taxonomicon" website? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Is the U Kentucky site the best possible source for carbon dioxide reception by horseflies?

It might not be the best source but I consider it a perfectly adequate source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Is Deora et al. 2015 the best source for introducing flight in flies?

It's an excellent source (PNAS) and specifically on the topic. Of course there are many general sources available. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Do we need "worms direct", a shopping site to tell us that dipteran larvae are fed on by birds?

Replaced ref with a non-commercial one. However, one can certainly rely on commercial interest to know there's a lively market in supplying dipteran larvae! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If a GA article does not cite the best sources for further research out there, it does not quite serve its role as a good tertiary source, which an encyclopedia like Wikipedia is supposed to be. About commercial sources, we run into other issues why choose one company and not another, that could be POV and worse, encourage future COI additions. I am not sure arguing about specific GA criteria and their wording is helpful here. A good article should be good enough for 90% of the people who end up here. Shyamal (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, we don't want a cruft magnet. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your work. It now passes the GA criteria. Shyamal (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: