Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grasshopper/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2017 [1].

Grasshopper[edit]

Nominator(s): LittleJerry, Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth

This article is about another major insect group. Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth have already brought this to GA status and we have recently done some fixes and expansions. We now feel it is ready for FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The advantage of having three experienced nominators is that the copyediting and nitpicking has been done before it gets here. Well done for taking this on and producing an excellent article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the kind words, and best wishes for the day's festivities. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed and checked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Link on ref 60 times out. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the archive is down for maintenance. Removing item. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

I'm pleased to see this article at FAC. The article reads well and appears comprehensive but as I know absolutely nothing about insects I'm restricting my comments to nitpicks with the referencing. The reference numbers refer to this version.

  • O'Toole 2002 in the Sources section is not cited and should be removed
Done.
  • The article should be consistent in how author's initials are formatted in the reference: with or without a period and spaced or unspaced.
Period, spaced
  • I suggest that the page numbers for Capinera 2008 in the Sources section are omitted so that Refs 36 and 43 can use the short format currently already used by Refs 37 and 67. Note also that Capinera is the editor and not the author.
Done.
  • Ref 1 - Why is this Part 4? Mentioned by Google but not in book. Need to add edition=2nd
Done.
  • Ref 5 - Don't link the title as not open access - the doi is sufficient
Done.
  • Ref 6 - Why specify publication location here but not elsewhere? Add oclc=1514958
Done.
  • Ref 11 - Remove title link as does not give access to article - doi gives abstract
Done.
  • Ref 12 - Looks like a children's textbook. The link to the page doesn't work for me (in London). Why is this reliable? Worldcat doesn't have it and I'm not likely to find this book in a big library. I suggest you use another source.
Replaced desc and ref.
  • Ref 13 - Title should be in title case. Page number?
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 15 and 16 - put in Sources and use short form?
Done.
Done.
  • Ref 19 - Unsuitable source - see Ref 12
Removed.
Done.
Most of it is unexceptionable; removed the last phrase. Updated ref.
  • Ref 28 - Suggest you add doi-access=free
Done.
  • Ref 29 - This is the text from the open access book cited in Ref 1. I consider the book a better source.
Done.
  • Ref 30 - This is text from the Ref 1 book (not University of Wisconsin)
Done.
Done.
  • Ref 36 - Short format cite to sources?
Done.
  • Ref 37 - Page -> Pages
Done.
  • Ref 39 - Mention University of Florida as publisher.
Done.
  • Ref 40 - Journal publishers are not usually specified for journals (and never with Ltd). Suggest unlink title and add doi-access=free to template
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 43 - Suggest short form - see at top
Done.
  • Ref 56 - Dated January 9, 1998 and is authored by Tim Connell
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 57 - Suggest unlink title and add doi-access=free to template
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 58 - This is an open access article in a journal called Base (Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Environnement). You need cite journal
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 59 - Why is this a reliable source? Who is the publisher?
Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 62 - Link times out
Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 65 - St John the Baptist - link is broken
Not now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 70 - Mention that the source is the United Nations
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 72 - Why is this a reliable source? This an enthusiasts web site written by André Dollinger see here
"The Ancient Egypt Site, composed by André Dollinger, is reliable and useful, and is the source of many of the assigned readings on the syllabus."of Texas Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced: "I do not have any academic degrees in Egyptology nor any affiliations with institutes of higher learning" - but at the very least the reference should acknowledge the author: last=Dollinger | first=André
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 82 - The author is H.W. Dickinson. What does 108–. GGKEY:XQY2HBWKP5Z. mean?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked whether the sources support the statements made in the text. -Aa77zz (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two more issues:

  • Ref 1 (Pfadt 1994 pp. 1-18) is identical to Ref 27. They should be combined.
Done.
  • Ref 29 "Life Cycle" is a web page that reproduces the text and diagrams from Pfadt's book (pages 11-16) see here. It would be preferable to replace the web page with a cite to the book as in Ref 1 (but different pages). If the book is moved to sources then the short format can be used for refs 1, 27 and 29.
Done.

- Aa77zz (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you satisfied with the responses/actions re. your comments, Aa77zz? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose: Yes, I'm happy with the responses to my comments. My review was limited to the sources and thus I'm not in a position to support or oppose promotion of this article. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan of the first sentence, which would not mean much to a layperson. I would change the first sentence to something like, "Grasshoppers are insects of the suborder Caelifera within the order Orthoptera, which includes ....(and mention more notable relatives here) ."
Thank you, that does work better.
Grasshoppers are plant-eaters, sometimes becoming serious pests of cereals - I'd tweak to "Grasshoppers are plant-eaters, with some (a few?) species at times becoming serious pests of cereals"
Done.
If possible, avoid each para in lead starting, "Grasshoppers..."
Varied.
In evolutionary terms, the split between the Caelifera and the Ensifera is no more recent than the Permo-Triassic boundary - Would be nice to get an age in millions of years here. There must be a source that discusses this...
Done, and added a source in the Phylogeny section.
.. the oldest living group of chewing herbivorous insects - I think this is worth going in lead
Done.

Ok all looks good now. so all good on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • All files are usermade, from CC licensed websites/journals, or PD, and the sourcing looks proper. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
  • No image of eggs and larvae?
We have an image of egglaying, and of six larval stages (instars). The eggs themselves don't look like much and I haven't seen a good image around. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This vector image of a drawing used in the article might be better:[2] But as space seems crammed, I think the space that image takes could be better used by showing the above mentioned eggs or larvae.
Ok, replaced it. Those are the 'larvae'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • These two images also need PD US tags:[3][4]
The Ruysch painting has PD-Art|PD-old-100 which is "considered to be in the public domain in the United States". The Wytsman image, published 1903, is now labelled PD-1923. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but if you look at the tag, it says "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States." So it seems something must be added. FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, the two statements are part of the same tag! I think we're safe there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The file description for the hieroglyphics here[5] suggests that the image is based on PD sources, but it doesn't state which, and it doesn't mention PD.
All I can see there is about CC-by-SA; it says it's derived from File:Egyptian-snḥm.PNG which claims CC-by-SA and a GNU free documentation licence. I don't see PD mentioned anywhere. It looks to me that the licensing is fine but if we need to fix anything, please say what. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The description credits "S. Rosmorduc (pictures), G. Watson (pictures), J. Hirst (pictures)", without specifying from what sources or who they are. They seem to be researchers. But in any case, the symbols themselves would be PD, so it perhaps needs to be stated, otherwise those researchers would be assumed to be the actual copyright holders, not the compiler of the image. FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see, PD-ineligible since fonts and typefaces are not eligible for copyright under Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices. Added to image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All looks fine now, I added the instar SVG, because the old one was still there. FunkMonk (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2017 (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/Grasshopper/archive1&oldid=761256768"