Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mantis/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2015 [1].

Mantis

[edit]
Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap, LittleJerry and Cwmhiraeth

This article is about the praying mantis, an interesting insect with predatory habits. The article has been through GAN and has been further improved and polished up since. There are three co-nominees, so we should be able to action your comments rapidly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC) NB: This is a wikicup nomination for one of the nominators. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
I am unable to find such a link. The author is given as "British Museum of Natural History" and the date 1909, so I believe the copyright will have expired even if the British Museum has not died? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image appears to be extracted from page 19 of "Guide to the exhibited series of insects in the Department of Zoology" by Charles Owen Waterhouse (d. 1917) and the Department of Zoology of the British Museum, published in 1909, doi:10.5962/bhl.title.27147. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I've documented the Commons page accordingly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). Could use an inline cite at end of sect Martial arts. Overall the sect In human culture is good. Could rename that sect to just "Popular culture". Then there are several smaller sects in that sect that could be expanded. As the reader I'm left wanting to know a bit more about the impact on culture without having to click off to other articles just yet. Perhaps a couple or a few sentences with cites in sects Martial arts, As pets, and For pest control. Otherwise, overall pretty good. — Cirt (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Links added. Glad you like the section; we're a bit leery about "Popular culture" as a title, as it's a bit of a cruft-magnet. Have expanded the sections on pets and pest control. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and support - I believe I reviewed this article for GA status and even at that time I thought it met the standards of an FA-though I did not check the consistency of the referencing style because that is not required for GA status.
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Barbara. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for book publishers
We don't. One removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, 13-digit ISBNs, when available, are favored over 10-digit ISBNS for book sources, but consistency is needed either way (I checked, all sources used provide both formats)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional, but including volume/edition numbers where available would be helpful (e.g. FNs 3, 4, 8)
Done, I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 7: check title capitalization (doesn't match that of the book)
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how initials are spaced (e.g. FNs 4, 10, 38 vs FN 23)
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closer inspection needed; initials before FN 38 are spaced; initials in FN 38 and beyond are mostly unspaced. Auree ★★ 11:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spaced throughout. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 10: volume/issue? Also check journal name (google has more hits for "Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum Alexander Koenig")
Replaced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something's still off here; I can't find the article in the journal mentioned. I think the publish date is wrong too; should that be 1997? Auree ★★ 11:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced ref with Klass 1997.
  • FN 18: title capitalization again. Generally, book titles are capitalized (check throughout)
Fixed throughout. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 21: check publisher
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 22: publisher?
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 23 is a chapter from the same book as that of FNs 18, 20 & 32, but has a different ISBN format and publisher notation (as well as title capitalization)
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FN 23 still has a different publisher notation from the others. Auree ★★ 11:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They all say "Johns Hopkins University Press." in title case, no italics; if you can still see something wrong could you fix it for me? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They were indeed fixed in one of the earlier revisions and are fine now :) The only remaining issue is with FN 10, and initial spacing in author names is still inconsistent (see comments above) Auree ★★ 09:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both now done as above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 30: "Frontline Magazine" is work (magazine), not publisher (notice how in the current format the volume and issue numbers show up behind the title)
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 31: ISBN? Always include ISBN if one has been assigned (check throughout)
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 34: most sources have "Observations on" rather than "Notes on" in the title. Also, a volume number is available here (69)
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 36: missing periods after initials
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DOIs are available for FNs 42, 43
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 47: page numbers?
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping here for now. Generally, it is better to be as consistent and complete as possible in providing information for your sources (volume/issue/edition numbers, digital identifiers, etc.) Sometimes this requires some researching beyond the source link provided in the article. Auree ★★ 23:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We think we have dealt with all the points you raised, and I have looked through the rest of the sources and made some improvements. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, changes look better. Further improvements can be made in particular to the web sources in the latter part of the references (see below). Auree ★★ 11:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing from FN 48...

[edit]
  • Minor, but titles for web page articles are generally capitalized, especially if the source has them as such (check throughout).
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 53: check url
Yes, it's the right book. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is now FN 54. Auree ★★ 22:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 55: publisher?
Seems to be right: "State Symbols USA is an organization dedicated to promoting appreciation and conservation of our natural, historic, and cultural treasures". Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is now FN 56. Auree ★★ 22:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Publisher added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 58: check publisher
Stated to be "Off The Mark". Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sundance Channel" or "The Sundance Channel"?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite; both formats currently appear in the article (choose one). Auree ★★ 18:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FNs 64, 65, 66 need publishers
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 67 needs better formatting. The url actually links to a digitized chapter of a larger work (see http://countrystudies.us/south-africa/)
  • What makes sanparks.org a high-quality reliable source?
The South African National Parks are certain to be correct about animal names in Afrikaans. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is that it's a forum and as such the source content cannot be considered reliable. I found a more reliable source that backs up the same claims here (I can read Afrikaans), which, for the record, is a chapter in an online book "Insek-kaleidoskoop"). P.s.: the Afrikaans word is hottentotsgot rather than hottentotsgod and should be changed as such in the article. Auree ★★ 22:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 69: Encyclopedia Britannica needs to be italicized per consistency
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 71: publishing website is italicized, but this is not the case for most other references. Consistency needed
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FNs 73, 74, 75: newspaper names should be italicized, and remove shouting in FN 74
Italics done. FN 74: the single word in upper case is from the original; inserted "(sic)". Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Auree ★★ 11:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your diligence, Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth, these look much better. I know reference formatting is tedious work, but once it is done the article will have a much more professional look. There are two points in the initial part of my review that I would still like to see addressed (see comments on FN 10 and initial spacing consistency), but other than that you guys are good to go on sources. Auree ★★ 07:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Auree. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian

[edit]
  • Support Chiswick Chap, LittleJerry and Cwmhiraeth, it was an enormous privilege engaging in a review of this article. The article is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, and is assuredly neutral and stable; and its lede, structure, and citations all conform to Wikipedia's style guidelines. The media is also acceptable, as an image review has already been completed by Nikkimaria. Per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, all the images are recommended to have alternative captions. All issues raised above have been addressed, and I can find no aspects of the article that would preclude it from Featured Article status. Congratulations on a job well done. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alt texts added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by West Virginian (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lede and overall
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the Mantis order of insects, establishes the order's necessary context, and explains why the Mantis order is otherwise notable.
  • The info box is beautifully formatted and its contents are sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
  • As stated above, per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, all the images are recommended to have alternative captions.
  • For the external links, I would suggest adding archive links, for those without, with Internet Archive or WebCite.
  • The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Etymology

  • I would suggest wiki-linking Ancient Greek to Ancient Greek; however, Europe probably doesn't need a wiki-linked per WP:OVERLINK.
  • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no additional comments or questions for this section.

Taxonomy and evolution

  • This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions regarding this section.

Biology

  • In the "Anatomy" subsection, "posterior" and "arolium" can be de-linked as they are linked above in the prose.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Sexual cannibalism" subsection, "Chinese mantises" and "deimatic" should be de-linked as they too are linked above in the prose.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no additional comments or questions for this section.

In human culture

  • It wouldn't hurt to wiki-link Sicily in the "In literature and art" section.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "10th century" should be rendered as "10th century A.D." as the 5th century in the previous sentence is listed as "5th century B.C."
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "In mythology and religion" subsection, "9th century BC" should be rendered as "9th century B.C." to be consistent with the B.C. listing above.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "As pets" subsection, USA should be rendered as "United States," "US," or "U.S." per MOS:ACRO.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no additional comments or questions for this section.

Thank you so much. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your timely response and incorporation of my comments and suggestions, Chiswick Chap. It was a pleasure to review this article. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

[edit]
  • "Mantodea is an order of insects that contains over 2,400 species and about 430 genera of mantises" It is very uncommon that the title of an article is not the first name used in the intro. I'd suggest switching it around, similar to most other insect articles. FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The etymology section looks like it would make more sense as a subsection or paragraph of taxonomy, as it deals with the scientific names.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Words outside the intro should not be bolded.
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because of the similar raptorial forelegs, mantidflies may be confused with mantises." Perhaps mention those are closer to lacewings?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As in the horse-fly article, I'm not sure why half of the article is in a "biology" section, only to the exclusion of human relations. This is a biology article after all, so seems rather redundant. Would make more sense to make a split between anatomy/description and behaviour/ecology.
It's both a biology and a culture article, rightly covering both aspects. The biology section can be subdivided, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and biting and chewing mouthparts" Not sure what is meant by this. To differentiate it from insects without mandibles) Why not just say it has mandibles then?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several terms are not explained, for example arolium, cerci, tergites, etc. Doesn't have to be in depth, just where they are on the body, and what they are if possible.
  • Not sure, but is "I Fucking Love Science"[2] a reliable source in itself? Couldn't the articles it refers to be cited instead?
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be correct though, just needs better sourcing. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cited Grimaldi & Engel saying that larger mantises sometimes eat lizards and frogs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, it only says "This means that once again we don’t know whether the hummingbirds could have ultimately escaped, leaving the peeved praying mantises hungry", whereas you write they are known to eat hummingbirds.
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You note that "mantid" has incorrectly been used to refer to the group as a whole, yet use the term in the article several times for animals outside Mantidae, for examnple "bark mantids in the family Tarachodidae"
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A later text, the Jingshi Zhenglei Daguan Bencao 經史證類大觀本草" Do we need the Chinese characters here and not for other texts mentioned?
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Extraordinary thin-legged mantis" Is this a common name or just an overly hyperbolic caption?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A pet mantis in someone's hand" Too informal, "in a hand" or "being held" would be enough.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They therefore have "negligible value" in biological control." Quoted statements should always been attributed.
Repeated ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several cases of terms that are linked at their second, instead of first, occurrence.
I have done some additional wikilinking. Can you point out anything you specifically noticed? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mantid" was once almost a synonym for Mantodea, given that few species outside the Mantidae were known; that has changed with recent discoveries." Needs citation.
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only the intro mentions anything about their distribution and habitat.
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The eggs overwinter, protected by their hard capsule, and hatch in the spring." Again, there should never be unique information in the intro.
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is little to no physical description in the intro other than of their forelimbs.
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support (from Hylian Auree) tentatively on prose, style and sources. I read through the article twice and thoroughly checked its sources and found no major issues. The writing is clean and concise, reliably cited and supplemented by beautiful illustrations. I only found three (minor) foibles:

  • "In the 10th century A.D. Byzantine era Adages, Suidas describes an insect resembling a slow-moving green locust with long front legs;[49] translating Zenobius 2.94 with the words seriphos (maybe a mantis) and graus, an old woman, implying a thin, dried-up stick of a body." This reads rather awkwardly; the clause after the semicolon is a sentence fragment.
Split into two sentences. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It ends Isabella Rossellini's short film about the life of a praying mantis, one of her 2008 Green Porno season for the Sundance Channel." Confusing (especially the latter part)
Reworded to say "... short film about the life of a praying mantis in her 2008 season". Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because the lifespan of a mantis is only about a year, mantis enthusiasts often breed the insects." - this may be my layman ignorance, but what does their lifespan have to do with breeder enthusiasm?
Said "people who want to keep mantises often breed them" - the point is that if you don't, you would constantly be going out to buy replacements. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once these and FunkMonk's comments above have been resolved, the tentative portion of my support no longer applies. Great work, guys! Auree ★★ 08:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A little late on my part, but reading through again I have one more question: The article states that mantises are distributed in both tropical and temperate climates, yet in the reproduction section only mating in specifically temperate climates is discussed. What about in tropical climates; do the mechanisms there differ considerably? Auree ★★ 07:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the mechanisms vary at all, its just that tropical species can breed at any time of year while in cooler places, they have to synchronise their life cycle with the availability of prey. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be clarified in the article, then (with proper sourcing, of course)? Auree ★★ 17:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prete, of which LittleJerry has a copy, may clarify this, but insect breeding habits vary enormously around the world, depending I guess on temperature, climate, time of year, availability of prey, presence of predators etc. Most studies are on individual species and tend not to make generalisations. Maybe one of the others can help because I can't find a suitable source to say this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a thorough look for details of when and where mantises mate in the wild in the tropics. I tried Indonesian/Malaysian language sites (the area with most mantises); articles from India; searched JSTOR; looked through scientific papers; found nothing usable. It's a bit awkward proving a negative, but I think all we can say is that little seems to have been written on the matter. Experimental observations have generally been made in the laboratory, in Europe or America. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added a mention of the mating season in tropical areas. LittleJerry (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wonderful article, you guys have done an excellent job with this one. I found no major issues at all, so this article is definitely worthy of FA status. Burklemore1 (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mantis/archive1&oldid=1136096635"