Talk:Sirex woodwasp

Sirex woodwasp has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 27, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Insects: Hymenoptera Mid‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Hymenoptera task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 20 August 2011 by reviewer 123Hedgehog456 (talk · contribs).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sirex woodwasp/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~What's a "breastbone"? The whole article needs careful copy-editing, if not translation into English. Please check every sentence and redraft if necessary.~~ Article copy-edited ~~; a few remaining issues are tagged.~~ Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead: ~~is written as a short article. Suggest complete rewrite of lead (move refs to body, or discard) to summarize rest of article.~~ Done Fiction: n/a Lists n/a Layout OK weasel words OK
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	(just 2 external links, no booklist)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Refs are ok; would be nice if it chose Surname, Forenames (or Surname, Initials) or vice versa (Forename Surname) etc, but this is not a GA requirement.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No sign of it.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes it does.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	On topic, yes, but somewhat rambling, again it's basically a matter of copy-editing.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Factual. Slight trouble with "native" (to where)... please check for generality.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No sign of recent edit-warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All from Commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Relevant: yes. ~~Captions: please check the use of English. "damages" etc.~~
	7. Overall assessment.	~~On hold pending thorough copy-editing of whole article, redraft of lead, tagged items.~~ OK, we got there eventually.

I had requested a copyedit at GOCE, and am awaiting till someone will do a copyedit. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 17:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the prose is so bad. I also had difficulties in understanding some of the jargon. For example, crystallize is the same as resinate.--Tomcat (7) 17:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The plain meaning of crystallize, which is just one example from many, is to form a crystalline array of atoms or molecules, plainly not what is intended here. To resinate is I guess to fill with sticky resin, not a word in my vocabulary which I can assure you is literate and widely-read in several languages. The problem with the article, however, is not the occasional word, but the many sentences that sound as if they've been machine-translated. I note that the anonymous users who've scored the page on various metrics seemed to agree on this point, scoring "well-written" very low - though all the scores have now vanished. Here's a random sentence: "The host larvae are located to the surrounding wood via the antennae with the aid of the smell of leaking drill dust or fungus myzel, weak vibrations or differences in temperature." I guess that's mycelium; and the sentence probably means "The parasite locates host larvae hidden in the wood ..." - well, what do you think? Not too bad, eh? Try a few sentences for yourself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]