Talk:Megachile campanulae/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: IJReid (talk · contribs) 01:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My first insect review, I think. Anyways, sections of this article are better than others. Mainly, I think that the distribution section can be greatly expanded as well as rewritten. More later. IJReid (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First read

This article, while originally seeming only slightly off, turns out to be more in need of a do-over than I though.

~~Why is the title the scientific name, not the common name as in all modern animal GAs I know of?~~
~~Information in the lead should also be in the article, and would therefore not need to be referenced.~~

Done. —Gaff ^ταλκ 16:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~The information of "Megachile (leafcutter and resin bees)" should be in "Taxonomy", and anyways, the section title is very strange.~~

Working on it. Made some copy edits already.—Gaff ^ταλκ 16:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been looked over. Does it meet your approval @IJReid:? —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is good enough for me to strike the querry. However, are any cladograms published that include it as well as related species? If so, place a request here, and I will get to it. Also, what are the relationships of it within the genus, as well as subgenus? IJReid (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best to answer these questions by placing edits in the article, but it may require a melittologist or at least somebody with more experience dealing with taxonomy. I posted some info re: cladogram to the article talk page. —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~The image in "Life cycle and behaviour" does not seem to have anything to do with Megachile campanulae, nor with the life cycle of Megachile.~~

I removed this image. It was not helpful. I added one of a resin bee nest with larvae. I can try to find something with a cross section of the nest. —Gaff ^ταλκ 16:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~The section title "'Plastic nests'" should be renamed "Artificial nests".~~

Maybe "synthetic nests"? Artificial nests could include the wooden boxes with holes drilled. This section is about the Toronto study where the bees actually gathered plastics/synthetics for nest building. —Gaff ^ταλκ 16:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even better than my suggestion. IJReid (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~A total range map should be used, and placed in the taxon box.~~

I'm building the map. The WP Maproom was not able to complete it.—Gaff ^ταλκ 16:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaff: A really good website for maps is ShareMap. To move an image to commons, select the tool icon, and chose "export to wikimedia commons". IJReid (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding references to the bee range being more extended than the initial references described, so will have to hold off on making the map. There are other insect GA's without a map. Eventually, however, either I will make a mpa or have one made.—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done See article. —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~The subspecies of Megachile campanulae are only mentioned in the "Description" section.~~

Moved to taxonomy and naming section. Is that what you had in mind? These subspecies are not described in ITIS, so may be archaic, but they are mentioned in the reference provided. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coelioxys sodalis is not mentioned in the article as a kleptoparasite.

~~It is there as brood parasite. I can rephrase. I'm not sure the image is helpful, but it looks interesting and is marginally relevant...—Gaff ^ταλκ 16:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]
I replaced it with an image of another parasite, which has been more specifically implicated. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Polination" should definitely be greatly expanded.~~

I'll work on prose here and see if I can find more sourced material. The plant list is what is documented in literature. I don't want to get into original research waters, by making (obvious) suppositions that they pollinate other plants in the area. SOmething about be anatome relevant to pollination would be appropriate.—Gaff ^ταλκ 16:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will give this article a week, for these to be corrected, but if at least three are still not done I will fail the article. IJReid (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply #1 -- naming conventions

@IJReid: Regarding article title Megachile campanulae rather than Bellflower resin bee: the current arrangement is in keeping with guidelines at WP:WikiProject_Insects#Names_and_titles. The guidelines read: "In cases where common names are well-known and reasonably unique, they should be used for article titles. Scientific names should be used otherwise." This bee has more attention placed on it by the scientific rather than the common interest. Google results return mostly articles on the scientific name, with only a few news articles citing the common name. (The news articles are in reference to the "Plastic nests" phenomenon described in the article). I suspect that if we counted page hits to determine which has the most page hits, the article heading as written would be the champion, as this is the page linked to by the Did-you-know. Thus to make the page move will create a situation whereby there are more links through the redirect. My understanding is that this adds work onto the Wikipedia servers and slows down the system. I'm not particular on this point, however. If it is required that we submit a page move request in order to bring the article to GA status, I can post the request. As a non-admin, I cannot move onto an already created redirect page with more than one edit in the history. The current Bellflower resin bee page has two: one editor created the redirect and another listed the rationale. The backlog at Wikipedia:Requested_moves could be well over a week. Thoughts? —Gaff ^ταλκ 14:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the page can stay. As I am not a common editor of insect articles, I was not aware of the guidelines. I have struck out the querry. PS: I downsized the section you created, just so that an unnecessary section is not added to the talk page, and the edit link at the first header will allow editing of the entire review. PPS: I find that as a non-admin, the easiest way to move an article to a redirect is to copy-paste the info and then redirect the original page. IJReid (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Issue #2: Information in the lead should also be in the article, and would therefore not need to be referenced.

Fixed! Not technically required per WP:LEADCITE, but an easy fix. I agree: it cuts down on unnecessary clutter.

Detail problems

Now that those major problems are done, I will get into some of the more minor problems with detail and prose.

~~The lead can definitely be expanded with some info.~~

On this note, can you comment on this edit and the commentary on article talk page? It would be helpful before I launch into some failed attempts that get reverted. —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as long as the information in the lead is not as complex or detailed as that in the article, you should be fine. Oh, and remember, the lead should only include the most notable and interesting info, not short sentences of every little thing (as I had the accident of doing). IJReid (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead expanded. I used the Good Article Abantiades latipennis as an example and adapted it.—Gaff ^ταλκ 15:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~The taxon box should include mention of its subspecies/synonyms.~~

Done —Gaff ^ταλκ 03:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~All mentions of scientific names should have these names in italics.~~

Done Higher levels (above genus) are not italicized by convention. —Gaff ^ταλκ 03:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: generic names in Parasites section are not all italicized. IJReid (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! I think I have them all now. —Gaff ^ταλκ 14:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~The second paragraph does not contain info directly relating to M. campanulae, and the last sentence of it contains redundancies.~~

~~: In progress —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Fixed? —Gaff ^ταλκ 15:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~In the first sentence of a paragraph, it is tendency (at least in most GAs) to have a mention of the full name of the animal.~~

~~: In progress —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

I did some edits to address this. The animal name is in at least the first sentence of each new section and in the first sentence of most of the paragraphs. It is not in the first sentence of a few paragraphs, because it seemed a bit awkward. Is that okay? —Gaff ^ταλκ 15:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Distribution should be totally redone, as their are problems with grammar, flow, and very little info.~~ IJReid (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to get to this section. I did some reformatting just now to improve the flow/clean it up. The text distribution information was spread out among few different sources, so needed to consolidate. It is all published on the map, so this is not really "original research". Unfortunately, there is nothing more specific about the habitat (e.g. more likely to be found in meadows or forests) in any references that I can identify. —Gaff ^ταλκ 15:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Pesticides are considered human-made, so the section should be moved into Human interactions.~~

* done. —Gaff ^ταλκ 16:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~The spelling of the species name should always be the same, unlike in mentions in the Morphology and Parasites section.~~

fixed. I think I found all of them... —Gaff ^ταλκ 16:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Some image captions could be rewritten (not necessary).~~

made some copyedits. —Gaff ^ταλκ 16:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sections of the second Human Interactions paragraph could be rephrased/rewritten/corrected.~~ IJReid (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edits made. I can do more, or ask for input from another editor, if needed. —Gaff ^ταλκ 16:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~All sentences should be referenced, three at the ends of paragraphs are not.~~

I think you mean all paragraphs should be referenced? It is not correct that all sentences need to be referenced, per WP:CITEBUNDLE. I've clarified references for sentences at end of paragraphs, just for clarity. If there are other questions on tagging, if you can label them with {{cn}} or mention them here, I can further clarify. —Gaff ^ταλκ 03:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~What is M. e, mentioned in the Distribution section.~~

somehow this got truncated during a copy edit. fixed now.—Gaff ^ταλκ 03:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why is it so important for illustrations of the bee to be mentioned in Morphology, it is better to instead use the references to expand the section.~~ IJReid (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are asking for here. The images mentioned of the genitalia, nest structure, and immature stages are not available to post to the article d/t licensing issues. As for as the highly detailed morphologic descriptions, the text is here. I've condensed it down to essentials, since adding all of that information will be a lot of bulk and I'm not sure it does much in terms of improving the article. —Gaff ^ταλκ 03:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the mentions of when this bee was illustrated should be removed, and instead replaced with more information on morphology from their references. IJReid (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In process. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~The new information added has species name unitalicized.~~
~~I believe that it is best to remove the subheader Females, and instead just specify whether it is males of females for which the morphology is described.~~ IJReid (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is all still in process. I'll fix up the minor details. The source has the morphology broken down between males and females (see links if interested). It is going to take some time for me to get it all ready, because of other commitments. I can ping you when it is ready to save you the hassle of checking back before it is ready for review. —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@IJReid: The section has now been radically expanded (to the fullest extent possible based on published resources). This is much more detail than provided for Good Articles on other low importance/obscure insects. Breaking it into sections by sex and then body segment is how it was done in the reference. I think this might be the best way, but I'm open to suggestions. I'm happy to hear your thoughts on how to make it work best. It needs to be broken up in some way, or it is just a bunch of text. In terms of illustrations for this section, the image of the bee in the infobox is very high quality and there is another high quality image at Wikimedia Commons. They are both males, but it does appear that on one of them (the one in the infobox) the S4 segment (modified stinger) is extended, but it is retracted in the other. I added the generic anatomical map of a face, to provide some reference. —Gaff ^ταλκ 03:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. IJReid (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now that the article is more-or-less good, I have a few final comments before I look over the entire article again.

~~It would be best if you linked to, or less preferably defined, some of the technical terms in the morphology section.~~

Done. Please point out or mention any terms that still need clarification. I can either link, define, or rephrase. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Try not to put a space between a period and a reference, like in the morphology section.~~

fixed. I searched the entire article for "<r" to make sure. —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~The morphology section is now quite good, although to avoid copyright violation I would recommend slight simplifying (not necessary).~~

Done. I will keep chipping away to make this more readable. I don't want to "dumb it down" too much, because I like the detail and it compares well to what is shown in the image. Let me know if you have specific area of concern. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query for @IJReid:: The pollination section: there has been some criticism on the article talk page about the use of a gallery to present the pics of flowers which the bee is known to pollinate. (As an aside, it seems obvious that the bee pollinates more than what is listed in the published references, but we can't really expand on that without a reference, or it is original resarch.) I am fine with this as a list rather than a gallery, with maybe one photo (of the bellflower/campanula). I can try to add something else about the types of plants/flowers that Megachilids in general pollinate. Do you have any preferences/guidance? I don't think that it is essential one way or another for the GA review, but I'm hoping you can offer some opinion. thank you. —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is better know, as before the images were a little much. However, I think that instead of having at the end of the last one, to place it directly behind the semicolon, as is the tendency, with any additional genus-specific refs listing after the corresponding bullet. Once this is done the article is a pass! IJReid (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the reference tag back up. There just isn't much of a list of what this species pollinates. The best list for the genus that I have right now is more specific to bees in Africa [1], so not that relevant. I did some clean up. Hopefully this is sufficient. Thank you! —Gaff ^ταλκ 01:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once these are completed I will give the article a final look through before I make my verdict. IJReid (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]