Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sphecius grandis/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 not promoted by Karanacs 18:52, 20 September 2011 [1].

Sphecius grandis[edit]

Sphecius grandis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Atomician (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this for 2 weeks now and have been building it up and cross-checking to make sure it meets the FA criteria and I believe that with some feedback pointers this could become featured, thanks, Atomician (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ranges should consistently use endashes, not hyphens
    • Done.
  • FN 11: format, spelling
    • Done.
  • Need page numbers for this (if it's kept), this, and this
    • Done.
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? It seems to be aimed at youth
    • It's a higher education booklet, written to inform, what else should one turn to? Atomician (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need more consistency in author Bibliography formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you be more specific? Atomician (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've fixed up the names - so they are like "Smith, John" - they should all be formatted the same way. Some journals need formatting too like this. I'd do it myslef but have to run. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ucucha. Nice to see an insect on FAC; that doesn't happen very often. I think the prose in this article is awkward in places; I've applied some edits myself and suggest a few more here. If I'm wrong, feel free to say so or revert.

  • In the lead, you change from singular to plural and again: "S. grandis ... provides cicadas for their offspring. They are ... The wasp is". Please be consistent.
    • Done, but please check if there are more.
      • You still have "their offspring" (plural) there. Ucucha (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done.
  • In the second paragraph of the lead, it is unclear whether some of the information refers to this species or to the genus as a whole.
    • Done.
  • You say it occurs in Central America and in the western U.S., but Mexico (where it also occurs) is not usually included in Central America.
    • I wasn't aware of that, thanks and done.
  • "At first, the method to tell between S. grandis and S. convallis (the Pacific cicada killer wasp) was to compare the colour of the gastral tergites, S. grandis was originally thought to have yellow markings on five gastral tergites and S. convallis to have three markings, but this was found to be inadequate. A new method was recently devised which allowed identification through examination of the coloration of the tergite markings in the case of an anomaly in the placement of the marks." This doesn't read well to me, particularly the first sentence. It's a run-on sentence (there should probably be a period after "tergites", I think), and it doesn't really make clear to me what the new identification technique is. The body of the text does make clear what the diagnostic character is; I think the discussion in the lead should be rewritten.
    • Tell me if that's better?
      • I think you need to rewrite this more thoroughly. Perhaps: "S. grandis can be distinguished from S. convallis (the Pacific cicada killer wasp) by the colouration pattern of the gastral tergites. Formerly, the two species were distinguished on the basis of the number of tergites with yellow markings (five in S. grandis and three in S. convallis), but a more recent study showed that this character is insufficient to distinguish all individuals of the two species. However, they can be distinguished by the density of punctation on the first and second tergites." Ucucha (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done.
  • "The species was collected by Dylan Maddox on September 8, 1957, in Madera Canyon, Arizona and correctly identified by Charles W. Holliday."—why is this relevant?
    • It's information about the history of its classification, how is it irrelevant?
      • It's a widespread species, so I'm sure it's been collected and identified in many places; why do we need to be told that it was collected in this part of Arizona? Ucucha (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • First time collected and identified. Slight tweak.
          • If it was first described in 1824, how could it have been first collected in 1957?
  • "Analysis of mitochondrial DNA showed that there were two divergent clades each within the western and Pacific cicada killers, and that one clade of each were closely related to each other."—this reads awkward to me. I suggest: Analysis of mitochondrial DNA showed that both the western and Pacific cicada killers contained two divergent clades, and that each clade was most closely related to a clade of the other species."
    • Done.
  • How are males identified? The article only discusses identification of females.
    • Last sentence of Identification explains, research done on males revealed that the same method can be used for m.
  • The description section is rather short and gives little information about anatomy. How many tergites are there in total, for example?
    • I haven't found that information in any of the sources (and I'm running out), if I'd known I would have added it.
      • Holiday and Coelho (2006) say that "the body is rufous to nearly black"—the first source I looked at. Also, that source says there are rufous patches on the first two tergites (which I don't see anywhere in this article). Ucucha (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added both.
  • "A study by Quincy University"—the paper has authors from three different universities (incidentally, the reference should list all those authors); why is this a study by that particular university?
    • The journal of Thermal Biology was released under Quincy, hence why its research is attributed to it.
      • I'm not quite sure what you mean there, but if Quincy published the journal, that does not mean a study published in the journal is a Quincy study. Ucucha (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • How so? Unless I'm missing something vital, if it's published by Quincy, it's a Quincy study (its prime author is even a Quincy attendee).
          • I suppose this is rather a trivial issue, but I still can't follow you. Scientific journals are published by all kinds of entities, but that does not mean the studies published in those journals are affiliated with those entities. I once published a study in the Journal of Mammalogy, but that does not make that study an American Society of Mammalogists study; it was in fact conducted at Naturalis. Ucucha (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why doesn't this article use U.S. English?
    • Because I'm British. It's in one style and doesn't need to be changed.
      • But see WP:TIES, and this species has a large part of its range in the U.S. Ucucha (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • This article isn't a strong tie to the US, your link does not mean that I need to rewrite the entire article to be American. It's a wasp, found in America. There are articles about English topics written in American, once a style has been established it should be maintained.
          • Except when there is a strong tie to a particular English-speaking nation, and for an animal that tie can hardly be stronger than that it occurs in such a nation. But I'm happy to wait what other reviewers have to say on this topic. Ucucha (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Per MOS:RETAIN it is better to be consistent and keep the current established spelling convention than be pinickity. Seriously the effort required to change the spelling convention could be much better concentrated elsewhere. Polyamorph (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A successful defence increases the chances that they pass on their genes."—does that need to be mentioned? It seems rather obvious.
    • Removed.
  • "The species is Nearctic, found from Central America to the Western United States, in New Mexico, California and every state east of the Rocky Mountains."—Central America is Neotropic, not Nearctic, and don't you mean west of the Rockies?
    • Neotropic is done, but the reference states it as being to the east of.
      • This one? I'd hardly consider that a high-quality reliable source (as required by the FA criteria), but it's clear that it is talking about cicada killers in general, not about this species specifically. Holiday and Coelho (2006) give a list of U.S. states where it has been found. Ucucha (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed to west.
          • Do the cited references still support the text? It might be better to name the states: it also occurs in Kansas and Nebraska, which are in fact east of the Rockies. Ucucha (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also in Granada (Nicaragua)"—the link is wrong (it leads to the Spanish city), but do you mean Granada, Nicaragua or Granada Department?
    • Done.
  • Why is "Interaction with humans" part of "Geographical distribution"?
    • Done.

Ucucha (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on close paraphrasing Some of the paraphrasing might be too close to the source. This sentence "The timing of the emergence of females has evolved to correspond with the similar emergence of the cicada species of the area, Tibicen duryi and T. parallela, which they hunt for the provisioning of their nests", is very similar to the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Introduction of this article,[2] which reads, "The timing of female S. grandis emergence has apparently evolved to correspond with the emergence of the cicadas Tibicen duryi and T. parallela that they hunt for nest provisions". The nominator should ensure that the sources used are not too closely paraphrased. I know that there are limitations on how differently facts can be written, but every effort must be made. Graham Colm (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made these edits. Please check
  • mainly provides cicadas for its offspring — add "to feed on"?
  • punctation — unlinked and unexplained technical term
  • Sizing — I don't know if this is acceptable in AE, but weird for a British reader perhaps "Ranging in size"?
  • live for a long enough time to produce a brood in a year. — Does that mean that they live for a year, if not how long?
  • A study by Quincy University — I agree with Ucucha, why not just "a study showed..." or a "a study by Coeho et al..."?
  • What variety of English, colouration, but defense? Should be written exclusively in AE for a NAM endemic. I'm a Brit too, but my only NAm endemic FA is in AE
  • Approximately 90% of its life is spent underground as a larva. They rarely... — "it" has changed to "they"
  • I've implemented all of your suggested changes, apart from the rewording into American because there is a split decision, both myself and Polyamorph think it doesn't need to happen, but yourself and Ucucha do... so I'm torn. Perhaps some more discussion? Thanks for your comments! Aranea Mortem (talk to me) 20:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, yes, good to see some representatives of the small majority Shyamal (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • "The species was first collected by Dylan Maddox" - sounds odd, it was obviously collected first by Thomas Say. Perhaps the emphasis on its first record from Arizona ? - PS- noted already by Ucucha
    • "wasp is capable of thermoregulation which enables them to hunt for cicadas during the day" - the implied rationale is unclear - a wintery day ? or is it perhaps an early start in the cooler hours of the day ? Or does it mean it can cool down and hunt during the hottest part of the day ?
    • "Based upon an experiment on stings to mice by Vincent H. Resh and Ring T. Cardé" - that encyclopaedia is a tertiary source and there must be a primary source for that experiment which was unlikely to have been done by the editors.

Comments by Sasata (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • In general, the article is overcited. There is no need to cite consecutive sentence if they all come from the same source. In some cases, there's consecutive citations to the same source in the same sentence
  • Done.
  • I agree that WP:TIES overrides WP:RETAIN, and that the article should be in Am. Eng.
  • I'll do that now then, since there's a consensus. Done. (Coloration just looks so bare without a "u" in it!) Aranea Mortem (talk to me) 00:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • how about a citation to the protolog (and link if available)?
  • where was the type location?
  • Madera Canyon. Done.
  • make sure that short-form binomials have a non-breaking space to avoid unsightly line breaks
  • Done.
  • link rufous
  • Done.
  • "3 to 5 cm (1.18–2 in)" too many sig figs in the conversion output
  • Done.
  • "the males die within only a few days" within->in
  • Done.
  • link mg on first usage
  • Done.
  • link the other four New World species of Sphecidae (redlinks are ok)
  • Done.
  • "However, this was found to be insufficient because the positions of the markings can vary through different wasps of the same species." insufficient for what? also, maybe change "through" to "in"
  • Done.
  • link key; Tibicen duryi, Tibicen dealbata, T. parallela
  • "…frequently under sidewalks,[21] and is always in full sunlight." isn't this contradictory?
  • I've tweaked the sentence to make it not contradict itself, but tell me if you want more. Aranea Mortem (talk to me) 00:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Based upon an experiment on stings to mice, the western cicada killer has a pain rating of 1+, based on a scale between 0 and 4.4 (where 4.4 is highest), indicating a low pain in stings and a lethality of 46 LC measured by LC=μg⁄LD50 (LC="lethal capacity", μg="venom in the insect", LD50="μg⁄g of the venom", g="size of mammal receiving the dose" and LD="lethal dose"), where a lower rating indicated a higher lethality." Awkward, cumbersome sentence
  • I couldn't really get rid of the equation indicators, but I've split it into two, is it better? Aranea Mortem (talk to me) 00:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • if New Mexico is linked, so should Kansas and Nebraska be
  • Done.
  • "S. grandis wasps frequently interact" don't start a new paragraph with an abbreviation
  • Done.
  • I doubt sidewalk needs to be linked
  • Done.
  • anything useful in these sources?
Hastings JM. (1989). "The influence of size, age, and residency status on territory defense in male western cicada killer wasps (Sphecius grandis, Hymenoptera, Sphecidae)" Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 62(3): 363-373
Hastings J. (1986) "Provisioning by female western cicada killer wasps, Sphecius grandis (Hymenoptera, Sphecidae) - influence of body size and emergence time on individual provisioning success" Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 59(2):262-268
  • I found quite a lot of information from both of them, what did you find useless about them? Aranea Mortem (talk to me) 00:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm probably a smidgeon towards the simple side of human intelligence and might need an explanation of what you want me to do with the protolog comment, but other than that this has been very helpful and I think I've managed to sort out the vast majority of your suggestions. Cheers, Aranea Mortem (talk to me) 00:22, 15 September 2011 (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/Sphecius_grandis/archive1&oldid=1086102970"