Talk:Mole cricket

Mole cricket has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 27, 2015. (Reviewed version).

Archives

Archive 1

Lead image

[moved from user page] Don't really like the 4 rather similar insects as the lead image - would rather have one large beast, say the 4th one. What d'you think? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the first image with its sideways view and spade-like forelegs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Alborzagros: Sorry, hadn't spotted your involvement. I've changed to a single strong image of a mole cricket as I believe it gives a clearer picture of the nature of this (in truth very homogeneous) group. The multiple images of what are really very similar insects do not seem to me to help the reader; rather, given the very small screens many people are now using, it gives a weaker idea of what the insects may be like, the details almost invisibly small. (In fact, even on a large desktop screen, with the taxobox limiting the image size, things are not much better.) As this is the lead image, whose job it is to give an instant impression, I'd suggest that's not ideal. I respect the work done on the image and caption, but think we're much better off with a readable image. Do hope this is ok with you, this wasn't a random change. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mole cricket/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 12:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll review this, I used to catch these guys when I was a kid, very weird animals. FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First thought, seems a bit scant on photos of the subject. Perhaps some of the white space in the taxon list could be utilised for this? To show a few representative species? Could also be nice to have a front view of a specimen.

Haven't seen any front views yet, but have added a couple of photos to represent the subfamilies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Distribution of the 3 main genera of Gryllotalpidae" What does "main genera" mean? Might be better to just name them in the caption, now it seems a bit arbitrary.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The text about pygmy mole crickets seems a bit puzzling under description. Would make more sense under taxonomy, I'd say?

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No description of the head?

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anything on colouration? Seems most of them are brown.

And subterranean. Not a topic on which there's much to say, indeed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"in 2015 identifies six tribes, of which four are new" New as in they were named in that study? Could be clarified, since "new" is a recentism that won't mean much in, say, ten years.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"in the order Orthoptera (grasshoppers, locusts and crickets)" Only stated in intro, could be nice under taxonomy.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"a thing demonstrated by the" "Thing" sounds a bit unencyclopaedic.

Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, good it was removed, but I was referring to the "thing" under biology!

FunkMonk (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a good idea to note what the selfmade diagram was based on, as well as where the cricket in the image is from.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, though I should had specified that I meant the file page, where such info should always be present. FunkMonk (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was there already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't see it because it was hanging outside the template, it should be in the source and author fields. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the song text could need some line breaks? Is a massive wall of text now.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Males attract mates by constructing specially-shaped tunnels in which they sing" Seems a bit odd to have a selflink to a previous section the reader would already have read.

Oh. I'd say it does no harm, and remember that people read articles in different ways, not least by clicking on the Table of Contents to jump to whatever they may be interested in. I generally try to avoid saying "See above" but we can do that if you prefer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think either is superfluous in an article of this size, but it's up to you, not a big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, removed given swapped order (see next item (!)). Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the song section comes before the burrowing section, it was unclear to me that males make burrows only for attracting mates until I got to the latter part. May want to mention it earlier or switch the sections around. Also because burrowing seems like more of a definitive feature than chirping for this group.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"and others like the southern mole cricket are mainly predacious." And what do they prey on?

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In their native lands, mole crickets have natural enemies that keep them under control. This is not the case when they have been accidentally introduced to other parts of the world." But weren't there already native species of mole crickets in such places (as the text says their distribution is naturally worldwide except Antarctica)?

It seems apparent, from the fact that various biological controls have been used, that their introduction to new localities/countries can be problematic. Worldwide distribution means they are present on all continents rather than being present everywhere. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"They always sing underground, in a specially constructed burrow " Perhaps specify this is the males, if that is the case.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now looks good, passed! FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks indeed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit wiki, but for the human culture thing, mole crickets are mentioned in poem 16 of the ancient Chinese poetry collection, Nineteen Old Poems. "16. 凜凜歲云暮 – Bitterly Cold, the Year Ends" Someone might wish to incorporate that information.

Title of page

I object to the title that now exists because it should be plural - "Mole Crickets" because there are more than 100 species of them. 209.251.131.167 (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)SL[reply]

Distribution map

These are very common in Thailand as well - very commonly eaten as food daily there. Map needs updating. Sorry I'm not tech-able and hope someone can update. Nosirromjretep (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While you're correct, we're limited to copyright-free image files someone makes available in the Wikimedia Commons. The best global map for the family is here. That image is copyrighted, however. Dyanega (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]