Jump to content

Talk:Cricket (insect)/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: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 16:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, of all the images we looked at, it was the one that most clearly said "cricket". The philosophically minded might say there's no reason why one life stage should be more representative than another, as long as it's distinctive and recognisable (eggs therefore not being ideal). Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The head is spherical with long filiform antennae arising from cone-shaped scapes " Any link or explanation for filiform and scapes?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more unfamiliar terms below that need links or explanations at first occurrence:
  • "The pronotum is trapezoidal in shape, robust and well-sclerotinized"
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "neither dorsal or lateral keels"
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is a pair of long cerci"
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would appear tibia and femur are not homologous with those in vertebrates, perhaps "upper/lower leg" or something like that could be mentioned in parenthesis?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bunch of images need description templates on Commons, but that would mainly be important for FA, not here.
Noted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to the song of the male cricket, and uses it to locate the male" Seems second mention of "male" is a bit repetitive here?
Done. Thanks for taking on this review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Crickets are simple to breed and maintain in captivity and are reared on a large scale as food for zoo and laboratory animals.[5]" Isn't this more relevant under the As food section (which already mentions pewt fodder) than under predators? Being used as fodder isn't exactly natural...
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No more on taxonomy? When were they recognised as a group, etc.? Any historical controversies or such? A single paragraph seems a bit inadequate.
More recent study added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the number of million years ago be added after the geological periods mentioned?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't Phylogeny and taxonomy logically be subsections of the same section?
Merged. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could it be clarified what methods were used in the 1995 phylogenetic analysis (seems to be morphological)? Have no genetic studies been made? Surely there be must more recent studies?
More recent study added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, now it would seem the cladogram is outdated, or how? It at least needs attribution. FunkMonk (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the In human culture section looks like a trivia list. It would probably be good to attempt focusing this into larger paragraphs. The street sign, though, seems very peripherally connected to the subject. It doesn't even refer to the animal, but a band, apparently.
Merged short paras in literature. Merged 'Popular culture' section into one paragraph. Street sign is gone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the taxonomic info now relegated to notes would be much more relevant to incorporate into and elaborate on in the article than much of the trivia-like stuff.
The list of old refs cited by Gwynne are probably best as a background note. The note about crickets sensu latu is there as background in case people are wondering about the Ensifera, but this article is about true crickets, Gryllidae, and we don't want to confuse the issue. So it seems best to have it as a note also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I guess my point was mainly that I think it should be possible to tease out some more info about taxonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro also has some problems with technical terms not being linked or explained.
Glossed several terms in lead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are more than 900 species of crickets" Only mentioned in lead, all info there should be inthe article body as well.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, thanks FunkMonk! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cricket_(insect)/GA1&oldid=664606845"