Jump to content

Talk:Coccinellidae/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 16:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
  • Done.
  • It would be better if you have an image of the white-spotted example beetle you bring up in-text (so, if you bring up Vibidia in-text, you should have an image of Vibidia; or, if you have an image of Calvia, you should instead bring up Calvia in-text) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.
  • Cited, and done.
  • Clearly a much richer fossil record would be needed for that. Hennig's progression rule tried to deduce such things from modern distributions but has been criticised as too sweeping.
  • Reworded.
  • Not the same thing, it's at least potentially reversible.
  • Done.
  • the article seems to talk almost exclusively about American and British ladybugs, what about the rest of the world? Like, the In culture section is almost entirely about Western Europe, except for the last sentence which mentions something in America Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has since spread to much of western Europe, reaching the UK in 2004" this implies it made its own way to Europe rather than being purposefully introduced. It's best you combine the 2 sentences you have on Asian ladybugs in Europe, and I think it makes sense to put down when they were introduced to Western Europe seeing as you did that for North America Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the Europe date. I've put the spread-and-UK sentence after the Europe sentence, which seems to work well, as in that context the spread does not in any way contradict the "deliberate introduction" which precedes it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first coccenellid fossil species was described in 2018 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12542-018-0409-5 Serangium twardowskii and S. gedanicum; another in 2019 https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4571.2.7 S. kalandyki; and the most recent one in 2020 https://doi.org/10.1002/spp2.1321 Electrolotis hoffeinsorum Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cited these two genera to the sources, thanks. I'll maybe create I've created at least a stub for Serangium so it's not a redlink. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should explicitly state that there are only 4 fossil species Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dunkleosteus77 But there aren't, and I'm far from sure the statement was even true back when. There are at least 3 spp. in Baltosidis (Microweiseini); there is Electrolotis in the Sticholotidini; at least 3 spp. of Serangium; at least 1 Rhyzobius; and at least 1 Nephus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added in text, with citation.
  • Replaced.
  • Replaced.
  • Replaced.

References

[edit]
  • 11: Removed, there are enough sources for this point already.
  • 25: Page added.
  • 53: replaced ref, added more detail from [51].
  • Added throughout.
  • Formatted; for some reason WorldCat provides an OCLC instead.
  • Cited in full.
  • Checked the source, found 2 pages of relevance and added them.
  • Found a better source.
  • Added those.