Talk:Colony collapse disorder/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Commencing GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 09:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• References 77, 22, 65, 59, 9, 7, 88, 63 are dead/no longer active. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 09:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• "It is particularly difficult to evaluate pesticide contributions to CCD for several reasons. First, the variety of pesticides in use in the different areas reporting CCD makes it difficult to test for all possible pesticides simultaneously. Second, many commercial beekeeping operations are mobile, transporting hives over large geographic distances over the course of a season, potentially exposing the colonies to different pesticides at each location. Third, the bees themselves place pollen and honey into long-term storage, effectively meaning that there may be a delay of anywhere from days to months before contaminated provisions are fed to the colony, negating any attempts to associate the appearance of symptoms with the actual time at which exposure to pesticides occurred. Pesticides used on bee forage are far more likely to enter the colony via the pollen stores rather than via nectar (because pollen is carried externally on the bees, while nectar is carried internally, and may kill the bee if too toxic), though not all potentially lethal chemicals, either natural or man-made, affect the adult bees — many primarily affect the brood, but brood die-off does not appear to be happening in CCD. Most significantly, brood are not fed honey, and adult bees consume relatively little pollen; accordingly, the pattern in CCD suggests that if contaminants or toxins from the environment are responsible, it is most likely to be via the honey, as it is the adults that are dying (or leaving), not the brood."

This paragraph had a cite tag on the introductory sentence. I removed it, as the sentence is a lead, but the paragraph does need sourcing. Having looked over the references in the article and on Bee diseases, I understand that the information contained here is contained in the references and is somewhat common knowledge in this field, but it should be sourced for laypersons. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 10:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • Well written.

   b (MoS):

   • Conforms to manual of style. There is/was some problems with overlinking per WP:OVERLINK. "Canada", for instance, was linked about 4 or 5 times!

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • The article is well referenced. However, there are a number of dead links. As these are mostly supporting references, I will not delist because of them: but they need to be either fixed, or the information they source removed from the article. There is also a problem with assumed knowledge in the article (see above). This should also be addressed.

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • Citations are to third party publications.

   c (OR):

   • No evidence of OR.

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • Addresses major aspect of article subject matter.

   b (focused):

   • Remains focused. No digressions.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   • No issues concerning POV evident.

5. It is stable:

   • No edit wars etc.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • Images are properly tagged and justified.

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Images are accompanied by contextual captions.

7. Overall:

   Keep/Delist: KEEP ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 10:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)