Talk:Thrips/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shyamal (talk · contribs) 04:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It will take some time for me to gather sources and compare coverage in the article. Please bear with me. Shyamal (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Cwmhiraeth is co-nom. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Gynaikothrips ficorum, Cuban laurel thrips (Phlaeothripidae) is a dead link - but not sure if all those links really add value at all

Removed the dead'un. We can choose which others to keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• pollination of cycads by thrips may be worth mentioning - as also other plants that have thrips as dominant pollinators - see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4509684/

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Wonder if this might be of interest - http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/9/20160279

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Did not find any mention of winged-wingless polymorphism - actually illustrated in the taxobox image

Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Gall inducing thrips may be of more interest than just the one mention in the caption of an image - https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adriano_Cavalleri/publication/311004483_A_new_leaf-galling_Holopothrips_Thysanoptera_Phlaeothripidae_and_the_structural_alterations_on_Myrcia_retorta_Myrtaceae/links/583c358408aeb3987e2f5130.pdf

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• this is worth checking

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Also this nest-parasitic/inquiline mode of egg predation - Egg predation within the nests of social wasps: a new genus and species of Phlaeothripidae, and evolutionary consequences of Thysanoptera invasive behaviour. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2013, 109:332–341.

That link didn't work but I have added a bit on mite egg predation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• No illustrations of the asymmetric mouthparts? Perhaps something from https://archive.org/stream/morphologicalstu00pete#page/n45/mode/1up also https://archive.org/stream/phylogenyclassif25stan#page/162/mode/2up - many useful illustrations there that are better than the ones in the article now. (PS: have uploaded these to commons File:Aeolothrips.jpg and File:Melanothrips.jpg)

Ah, very useful. Added what seems to be the clearest of them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• A mention of "Physopoda" would be useful as also a bit of history (scan)

Added as synonym. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• There is quite a bit of additional information (esp. on behaviour) in Resh & Carde, let me know if you want the relevant pages. (PS have sent it to an old email id of Chiswick Chap - PPS - Seems like I missed sending the full article - now sending the first few pages)

Thanks! Added a paragraph on competition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Have added a case of ectoparasitism

Very good, thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Have added information on wind-dispersal
• I have checked content from BugGuide and added more material from better sources.

Thanks.

• I have slightly reorganized the sections because "evolution" contained unrelated content. Please see if this makes sense.

That's fine.

• The morphology section on the mouthparts uses a number of journals as sources but finally some of the statements are entirely incorrect - "The left mandible is larger, forming a narrow stylet used to pierce the cell wall of tissues" -the mandible is different from the maxillary stylets - I would remove several of those references and use content from Mound's entry in Resh and Carde.

Rewritten, replaced refs.

I think the coverage is much improved. Please check formatting of references and use templates wherever possible.

Thanks, and done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Many thanks as always for a most constructive review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you indeed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)