Talk:Mite/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 12:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No pictures of eggs or larvae? Also some images showing behaviour could be nice.

Image added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The intro seems too short for an article of this length.

I have expanded it a little. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Little on evolution here. When did they evolve? Anything on fossils?

Paragraph on fossils added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since mites are not a natural group, how are they defined? That seems like a pretty important oversight. It seems to be size, though this isn't specifically stated, you simply say that mites are tiny, not that it defines them.

It seems to me that the mites are all the members of Acari with the exception of the ticks. But as can be seen from the Phylogeni/Taxonomy section, there is no agreement as to the exact relationships between the groups and whether Acari is polyphyletic or monophyletic. So this article is about Mites rather than a taxonomic entity. The defining characteristic is the body being divided into two tagmata, the gnathosoma and the opisthosoma. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that is their defining feature that sets the apart from non-"mite" acarians, this should be mentioned explicitly. But it seems ticks have the same feature, so it would be good to get this cleared up. Merriam-Wesbter simply defines them by their small size and the fact that they infest things.[1] So what sets them apart from for example ticks? FunkMonk (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking on this review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More

"Raubmilben" Why use a German term?

Gone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could state how many million years ago all the various geological ages listed are.

Dated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have both a section and a subsection called phylogeny. Why not call the parent section "classification" or such?

Evolution it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"is polyphyletic" Term could be explained.

Glossed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If mites as a group is itself unnatural, saying "it is not a precise taxon" may be an understatement.

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"although some species lack an anus." How does this work?

(cough) They don't live long, and the (ahem) waste just stays in the gut for the short period before they shuffle off this mortal coil. Said so, with ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am I wrong, or do they not have distinct heads? If so, could be stated explicitly.

Added to lead/head section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if unnatural groups should have taxoboxes. Not sure what the standards are, but maybe I'll ask at the tree of life project. See for example antelope or pachyderm.

Agree, there's one for Acari which is a separate article. Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"become protonymphs" How does that differ from a nymph, and when does it become a nymph?

Nymph is sufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in an earlier review, I don't see any good reason why "diversity" should be distinct section; it includes info about behaviour/ecology and habitat, as well as info that would belong under taxonomy. It would probably be best to move the info to more fitting sections.

Merged. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there an external link with photos of a specific kind of mite? Seems redundant and arbitrary.

Gone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Insects are sometimes infested by parasitic mites. Examples are Varroa destructor, which attaches to the body of the honey bee, and Acarapis woodi" It doesn't seem logical that you mention insects first, and then give examples where you mention the mites first. You could instead start out with "Some parasitic mites infest insects" or similar.

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The phylogeny of the Acari is under dispute and several taxonomic schemes have been proposed for their classification." Needs source.

Rewritten and sourced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Some are thought to be parasites, while others are beneficial symbionts. Mites also parasitize some ant species, such as Eciton burchellii." No source.

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two paragraphs under Ecology lack sources.

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many paragraphs under Medical significance lack sources. Medical sections especially need very careful sourcing.

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Mites also hold the record speed; for its length" A mite, so not sure why it should be plural.

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"living in the soil or aqueous environments and assisting in the decomposition of decaying organic material, or consuming fungi, plant or animal matter, as part of the carbon cycle." This looks like it belongs under ecology.

Having considered moving this, I left it in the "Relationship with humans" section because it explains in what way the majority of mite species are beneficial to humans. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the rest of the article, Medical significance consists of many single sentences. Would look better if they were grouped in paragraphs.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" by Robert Hooke" Present him.

Glossed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"They are an enormously successful group" Only stated in intro.

Gone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"includes the commercially important" Only stated in intro, and you could also explain why it is important somewhere.

Beekeeping section added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks pretty good now, so passed. FunkMonk (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC) Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]