Talk:Housefly/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shyamal (talk · contribs) 10:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a wee bit of academic experience researching flies but I will need time to read up classical reference materials as I review this and compare it with reference material I would normally go to as a researcher. Shyamal (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking it on. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick first examination

Does the article fulfill the needs of the trivia-looker-up? These are frequent reasons for visitors to look up articles and not covering them will lead to subsequent poor quality additions.

How do houseflies land on the ceiling?

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do houseflies escape so easily?

Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do their rub their legs together? (and of course tarsal chemoreception is not covered yet)

Done. Chemo below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sectioning and structure

The sections seem appropriate however my personal preference (based on bird articles mainly) would be more for something like - 1) Description 2) Distribution 3) Evolution and taxonomy 4) Life cycle 5) Ecology 6) Relationship with humans

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Description

No mention of leg adaptations, chemoreception, pulvilli, claws

All mentioned and cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the calypters of the wing

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The confusable species listed here is unfortunately US centric due to the use of that particular source. There are others in other parts of the world including M. nebulo, M. vetustissima etc.

Said so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hewitt's 1914 work, although old and in some places dated, is quite a good source for morphological description (better definitely than say a random website citation to bugs.bio.usyd.edu.au - it is not like that source is the best place for readers seeking more information. Shyamal (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added ref to Gullan and Cranston. Hewitt is fine on morphology; the University of Sydney site is a simple, accessible and reliable site for basic facts, and doesn't require people to go and find a costly textbook. There is surely a place here for both kinds of source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but Hewitt is available online! Shyamal (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Life cycle

This is a very nicely written section and seems to be quite comprehensive but it seems to largely draw on the website of the University of Florida and does not let a reader find more detailed sources for the various bits synthesized here. Essentially, the article needs to do the service of a tertiary source to direct the reader to the best secondary and primary sources on specifics mentioned here.

Thanks. We'll look at further sources (3 added for pheromones), but this comment goes quite far towards arguing that the article should be a directing service, certainly not its main function. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a directing service - an encyclopaedic article - ie a tertiary source. Shyamal (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To give an example of the kind of quality of these sites - worse is the Animal Diversity Web - I just checked that "J. Doctor" has no relevant peer-reviewed publications - that site could have been written by anyone. I tried to follow back to find the roots of one factoid (or is it?) about the hooks on the mouth of larvae supposedly used to ingest bacteria - there is no such statement in three of the references cited there. I think it is not the kind of scholarship we need to replicate on Wikipedia. We can certainly do better. Also there is little reason to use sites like this coming from a pesticide company. Shyamal (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found that the Entomophthora note and the reference were dubious and have made some corrections from a source of better quality. A few other bits as well that were better sourced from Luther S. West's 1951 book. Shyamal (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's great you have all those sources to hand. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am very happy to provide you any that I have cited. Just let me know. Shyamal (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of pheromones being involved

Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology

This is a bit incomplete as several other associations have not found place. I saw no mention of phoresy - there are some well known pseudoscorpions for instance.

Added phoretic mite, pseudoscorpion, refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with humans

I think the book by Steven Connor Fly is a useful source to check for more cultural references.
See for instance Myiagros. Also see Keller 2007

I've cited Myiagros. To be honest, I think we've easily done enough on the relationship with humans section, which is already quite long for the size of article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Also Beelzebub. Shyamal (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have had to put in a few art references.

I think we are almost there. Do give a good examination for dead links, formatting etc. A fresh and complete reading for sentence connectivity may be worth the effort. I will run one check too, but after you. Shyamal (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the attentive review. Cwmhiraeth, would you like to do this bit? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made another run through. Please do check. Shyamal (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All those edits are fine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution. Shyamal (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Thank you for a very thorough review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]