Talk:Tick/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 11:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be in fairly good shape, so I'll do a detailed review over the next few days. Vanamonde (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   All issues addressed

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   All issues addressed

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Sources are formatted appropriately

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   All sourcing issues addressed: remainder are very high quality sources.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No issues found through spot checks.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Offending paragraph, from old version, removed: no other concerns.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Expansions carried out in the appropriate areas.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No extraneous material

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Only (minor) issue addressed

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No recent stability issues.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   No issues with image licensing.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All images are relevant.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Passing this now. Well done: this is a well-written article on an important subject.

Specific comments

Taxonomy and phylogeny

• Does "argasid bird tick" refer to the name of the tick? Then shouldn't it be capitalized?

Argasid is an adjective derived from the soft tick family Argasidae and should have a small "a". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Link rDNA or rDNA analysis

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Link or explain "capitulum" at first use

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Link or explain "monophyletic" at first use

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Can I assume that ticks have not undergone any of the (rather tedious) renamings that less prominent taxa are prone to?

Not that I am aware. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Range and habitat

• Unsourced sentence at the end of the first paragraph.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Not too happy with the organization: both disease and range information are mixed into both paragraphs. Can it be rearranged a little?

Is it any better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed.

• This section in general is a little thin. Is there information on how far north they are found? Whether they are present in greater quantities around human habitation? Whether the different varieties differ in range?

Expanded a bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Anatomy and physiology

• "that have secondarily lost the segmentation" I am confused by the use of "secondarily" here.

Explained a bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• The paragraph beginning "The Argasidae also differ..." refers to diet, and is out of place where it is.

Moved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Why not make diet and feeding a level two section? It is substantially different from what it is currently under.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Diet

• Is "its unfed weight" grammatically correct? Uncertain, as I've never seen this usage.

I think so. I have replaced one of the two instances of its use. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think the distinction between "expands" and "grows" in the last paragraph needs to be better explained: are some ticks actually adding new cells to their cuticle, while others are not?

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Crystal clear now, thank you.

Life cycle

• Slight redundancy in the Argasidae section, wherein the fact that a blood meal is required at each stage is mentioned twice

Fixed.

• And, that fact is a little confusing. I understand that every meal a tick has is a blood meal; so is this just saying they need to feed to transition to the next stage?

Yes, in Argasids.

Relationship to humans

• "Despite their poor reputation among humans, ticks play an ecological role in their communities." This sentence appears to make a normative judgement about such a role, which I am in general not fond of.

Removed.

No, it just says that many people don't like them.

I'd disagree, but we can have that conversation elsewhere :)

I'd already changed my mind on that and had intended to remove it: it did have a normative feel to it!

• Furthermore, the first paragraph here is a little out of place, as it is not referring to humans. What I would suggest is that the first paragraph of this section, minus the sentence fragment "Despite their poor reputation among humans," be moved to the "Range and habitat" section, which can then be titled "range, habitat, and ecology". Alternatively, the disease ecology bit could become its own section.
• "the mobile host can travel the globe" this is odd, as the next fragment says "migrate across the sea" which is a subset of travelling the globe. I'd suggest a different phrase here.

Done.

• Actually, ignore the struck comment. I read the whole section, and it seems to me that the issue is not so much with some content being out of place as with the section being inappropriately titled. It deals with all aspects of disease ecology, so why not call it that?

First part now named Ecology. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• In general, this article is on the short side, at ~28kb/2500 words of prose. This is not in and of itself a problem, so long as we can be certain the major aspects have been covered: at the moment, what I'm concerned with is the relative length of the "range" information, but I'm also wondering if more detail can be added on the ecological role, and/or about diseases in animals other than humans.

Have added description of taxonomic range. Their ecological role is rather sharply limited to being ectoparasites and carriers of disease.

• The lede is the only place where reptiles and amphibians are mentioned as hosts.

Fixed.

• At the moment, the lead does not seem to include information about the range/distribution, or the life cycle of ticks.

Added.

• The sources are generally very very solid, but I'm a little uncertain about the "CVBD" source, and the "aafp" website. Do they really qualify as RS, especially given that they are used for quasi-medical information?

The CVBD source is a Bayer site, and is used only for anatomical information, for which we are sure it is reliable. The American Family Physician journal is reliable but have replaced it with the same advice from the impeccable Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay.

• This result is rather worrying. This does not look like a website that lifted from Wikipedia.

I'm glad to say that that paragraph pre-dated our involvement with the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC) I have removed it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

That makes two of us, I would hate to be the one to discover two editors I have huge respect for violating copyright... :) Vanamonde (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the commons link go in the see also section? Not sure about this, but that's where I've always seen it.Vanamonde (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Done.

• Okay, thanks for the reorganization, but I'm really not a fan of the level-two heading "biology". I would consider taxonomy and population control biology too, and I think it makes the TOC ugly: but this is not quite contrary to any guideline, and so I cannot make you change it. Just a suggestion.

Taxonomy moved inside. I try to keep number of chapters down to around 7 as a rule, and the biology/with humans split is well established also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Still not a fan, but okay.

• That's everything, I do believe: passing this shortly. I hope you folks found the review a helpful process. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, and yes of course, the article is the sharper for the careful review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks. A good reviewer sees things that previous contributors missed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)