Talk:Varroa destructor/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Comments[edit]

This is a well-written and well-cited article, so I have only a few minor comments to make.

  • "Identification" does not mention how to tell this mite from Varroa jacobsoni. Is DNA sequencing the only option? Normally we explain how to distinguish from similar species.
Unfortunately you really can't go by physical description as the source lays out. It has a slight size difference compared to V. jacobsoni in the order of micrometers I added a bit about, but nothing our audience here could really use. There are some features that this pair has that are different than the other two in the genus that taxonomists may use, but I feel like that would be getting into the weeds for an encyclopedia. One thing sources do often use is a table of what mite species infests which honey bee species, so I have added that to help here. I'll take care of the redlinks for the remaining species in a bit. KoA (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was afraid that'd be the answer. The table is a definite help. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please spell out and wikilink names (if possible) on first appearance in the main text, even if you have already done so in the lead (summary) section. E.g. you mention "A. cerana" in "Identification"; you should instead be saying "Apis cerana" at first instance.
 Done. Just to avoid so many abbreviated species names, I stuck with eastern and western honey bee common names when mentioning those species at least.
  • "Life cycle" mentions "phoretic" without actually explaining it. It means being a passenger, carried about by the host.
 Done. Clarified this is when mites attached to adults to disperse.[1]
  • Please explain why infested bees wander into other hives: the implication is that they are seriously debilitated and start making mistakes, but this needs to be spelt out, with suitable sources.
 Done. I moved that text further down where navigation is addressed more. The why of this has some speculation, but the key thing to mention is that infested bees wander at a higher rate, likely due to reduced learning ability, etc. mentioned just before the text now.
  • "suck on the fat body": readers won't know what that is, nor where. Please indicate that it's a tissue rather than an organ (which its name does confusingly suggest), and that it's abundant just under the epidermis.
 Done. Sources do describe it both as an organ and tissue (kind of like skin for humans), but I've added another source and a bit more description in the body that spells out what it is briefly.
  • The last paragraph of "Behavior" isn't about behavior at all, but about "Host taxonomic range" (or some such heading), so I suggest making it into a separate section. It might be nice to add a cladogram to illustrate just how wide that (surprising) range is.
Endopterygota
Hymenoptera

Vespidae (social wasps)

Anthophila

Apini (honeybees)

Bombini (bumblebees)

Aparaglossata
Coleoptera

Scarabeidae (scarab beetles)

Diptera

Syrphidae (hoverflies)

I had to go digging on this a bit more (literature is a little sparser on this), but the general sense in sources is that outside of the Apis, these are not true hosts, but more of a dead-end host that happened to pick up the mites at flowers honey bees visited. I added a bit on that, but with that in mind, I don't think a cladogram would be helpful for others like hoverflies or scarab beetles. KoA (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Colony collapse disorder" mentions "Varroa mite", but does not name this species; the cited source however does, so it'd be best to say V. destructor instead.
The CCD article also needs a rewrite since delisting (on the to-do list), but Varroa mite is the common name for V. destructor, so the same species is being discussed. I usually try to avoid having the abbreviated species name and have the common name when possible instead throughout the text. If V. destructor still sounds like a better option with this background though, I can replace instances of Varroa mite. KoA (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. But in this article le you say that *most* talk of Varroa mites meant this species, but that V. jacobsoni also affects Eastern honeybees. That clearly means there are *two* species of Varroa mite, and you can't elide that however uncommon the other species is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is where things get a little complicated in sources (and likely rankles a few taxonomist hairs in all of us), so just to be sure it's spelled out.
The common name used in sources today for V. destructor = Varroa mite or just varroa mite. Not so great for us because we need to be careful when were are talking about the genus instead as "mites in the genus Varroa", but that's the nature of the subject we're given. The other mites in the genus don't get that common name normally, though I can find a stray source or two that sometimes refers to V. jacobsoni and destructor both as varroa mites.
Prior to 2000 Varroa mite was still used, but it was used for V. jacobsoni because V. destructor hadn't been split out from that species yet.
So with that in mind, we can stick with the official common name Varroa mite, or we can just default to every instance of that being V. destructor. It's kind of a wash for me when I weighed all this and just went with the common name to avoid many instances of abbreviated species names, so I'm good with whatever preference you have after going through this background. KoA (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you're replying at great length here, but the task should not be to convince me: the task is to make the article a) accurate and b) clear. Your recent changes have certainly improved accuracy, but I'm afraid it still won't be clear to the ordinary reader (not a biologist, remember) that "Varroa mite" == V. destructor. What we need is a sentence (just before the welcome table about "Bee hosts") which states that across the Western world, the phrase "Varroa mite" is commonly used to mean just this species, despite the picky taxo-caveats etc etc. Then it will be all right to leave the rest of the text as it is. By the way, even technical authors use the phrase "Varroa mite" without italics (whereas V. destructor must obviously be italicised), so let's format it like that please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap, just making sure everything made sense with the background in mind. I added a sentence directly on the Varroa mite common name and took out italics in the common names. I think that should do it for items here unless I missed one. KoA (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Chemical measures", the paragraph starting "Synthetic compounds" might be better as a table with columns for Compound, Effectiveness, Comments/side effects (and a row for each compound) to make comparisons more evident.
 Done KoA (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Genetics", the sentence "Efforts also have been made to breed hygienic honey bees, such as Varroa sensitive hygiene..." isn't quite right. The hygiene thingy is a behavior, not a type of bee. Perhaps say "such as those bred to have Varroa sensitive hygiene behavior..." or something of that sort.
It's actually both. The breeds that result are referred to as hygienic honey bee breeds, so it's both a type of bee and variations on the type of heritable behavior. I've clarified this a bit more in the section. KoA (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citations variously name authors in the format "John Doe" and "Doe, John". Please choose just one - the "Doe, John" is generally preferable, and it is supported automatically by using the |last=Doe |first=John parameters in the "{{cite journal ...}}" and similar templates.
 Done Looks like it was a handful of old refs that never got updated. KoA (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's helpful to readers if notable authors are wikilinked in the citations. E.g. Dave Goulson.
 Done I did a couple, but I didn't spot any other names that would stick out as having BLPs. KoA (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref [9] Featured Creatures needs isn't correctly presented. It should have the title, something like "Featured creatures: common name: varroa mite", and publisher, "University of Florida Entomology & Nematology Department", authors (Ellis, James D.; Nalen, C.M. Zettel), and date, October 2022.
 Done KoA (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A new editor, likely a student, has added a large chunk on "Honeybee's behaviour defense against varroa mite". Apart from being poorly-cited, it's mostly off-topic, especially as there's already a bit on bees' hygienic behaviour above. I suggest you cut the added material, unless there's some small and adequately-cited tidbit you think worth preserving. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. It was pretty much redundant anyways or would belong over at Varroa sensitive hygiene if someone really wanted to have more depth on the beahvior. KoA (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Smartse[edit]

I hope you two don't mind me barging in with a few comments:

  • In the lead "feeds on honey bees" and then "honeybee pests" - should there be a space or not? It seems as if both are correct, but it's odd to use different variations in the same sentence.
 Done. Both are correct, I just forget to be consistent with this one.
  • The lead makes no mention of any management tactics even though it makes up a substantial chunk of the article body.
 Done.
  • Being so similar to V. jacobsoni and the surrounding confusion is probably worth mentioning in the lead.
 Done. KoA (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "higher levels of bee losses" in the lead should either link to or be changed to CCD.
That's a little trickier since CCD is a specific set of symptoms rather than overall honey bee losses beekeepers face (sometimes lay-readers just lump everything as bee declines as CCD, so we have to be careful about that). I did add a sentence about CCD specifically though. KoA (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The order of sentences in the second paragraph of Identification seems a bit off - "Because of this, most pre-2000..." sounds like it would be better after explaining that it doesn't attack Western honeybees.
 Done. KoA (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may just be me, but at first I presumed that eastern and western was referring to USA coasts. I've no idea what is more widely used, in the literature, but European and Asian would have made things more understandable for me. I also see that in Range that this is the terminology used - it should at least be consistent within the article.
I debated on this too since the Asian/eastern goes by a few different names, but western honey bee is the article common name for the other species. Asian makes sense since it's (mostly) confined to that region, but European/western is used more widespreadly across the globe and not just Europe. They're interchangeable, but does going with western/Asian common names help differentiate things better? KoA (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most organism articles have a section on taxonomy. I see that this is included in the identification section, but have you considered splitting it out or changing the section title to make it easier for a reader to find? Description and Taxonomy is one option.
 Done. I usually like to avoid redundancy by having description/taxonomy together, so I've added to the section title. KoA (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence on RNA interference reads quite clunkily and it sounds as if it is only experimental rather than in use. I'd suggest moving it to after the info on resistance/breeding.
 Done. From what I can see too, it's past proof of concept, but is in the top of the ongoing research list, so I didn't give it further mention. KoA (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Males will not leave brood cells." So the females mate with them before they emerge then?
Correct. I had more info a couple paragraphs later where more mating discussion was addressed. Sources usually try to follow the female lifecycle in narratives and mention the males when relevant, so I tried to stick to that framework instead of bouncing between the two. KoA (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done for both this and CCD. KoA (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know GA isn't FA, but there is no mention of genomics in the article which seems like an omission: [2]
 Done. I pulled from a few genetics articles for relevant info.[3] Most of it is focused either on differentiating the two closely related species, when the split occurred (around the 1950s), and genetic bottlenecks, etc. associated with a new species. KoA (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KoA: Thanks - that looks mostly good. Just a few follow ups - The RNAi info is now out of place in a section on bee genetics - it might be better under chemical control. In the last comment you say "when the split occurred (around the 1950s)" - do you mean that V. destructor only split from V. jacobsoni then? That seems like an important detail which I can't see in the article at present. Kind of related, but reading the V. jacobsoni article I see that they are more generalist instead of purely parasitic, which would also be worth mentioning here. SmartSE (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh also - it would be good to explain what drones are. SmartSE (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

This species article is necessarily more technical than those of many other species because of taxonomic changes, introducing quite a bit of complexity which needed to be more fully explained. The changes have made the article significantly clearer and more readable, and it now gives an excellent introductory overview of this economically important species. There is just one small item outstanding. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Varroa_destructor/GA1&oldid=1182996601"