Talk:Pyralidae/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is quite inadequately cited (criterion 2). For example, the long list of "notable snout moths" in "Relationship with humans" (section 1) has only one cited member, and one marvellously vague reference at the top to the whole "systematic list of British moths", without elaboration. There is no support for the claims of economic importance (apart from the one ref for the Almond moth), and no evidence for their impact on bees, or their other uses as petfood and fishing bait. Similarly, the "Systematics" (section 2) asserts without support that there are five subfamilies, and then lists these in the "presumed phylogenetic sequence" with no evidence at all of where that sequence may have come from; and two of the groups are wholly uncited. There is no sign of a cladogram or discussion of the phylogeny.

I am therefore immediately failing the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]