Template:Did you know nominations/Aleurodicus dispersus

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Aleurodicus dispersus

(

)

... that the spiralling whitefly, a major agricultural pest, has spread rapidly in tropical and subtropical regions since the mid 20th century?

Reviewed: Taylor Gold

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nominated at 06:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC).

I will review this ... my lunch break ends soon, so I will continue in a few hours if necessary. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
One quick query: I may be wrong, but ref [4] doesn't appear to support the first sentence of the "Biology" paragraph, but rather ref [1] does. Pls could this be checked and fixed if necessary. I will continue with more in a few hours. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It was on a different page of the NHM site, so I have added an extra citation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sloppy writing abounds:

"a major pest of agricultural crops in the hottest parts of the world" A pest of crops in Death Valley? Silliness aside, this species of whitefly isn't of pest status in the Caribbean and the South American tropics because it is limited by predators in its native range.
"West Africa, India and other parts of the Indian Ocean". West Africa is a part of the Indian Ocean? It isn't even close to it!
"When they emerge from the pupal casing". Do they now? The true bugs are hemimetabolous, they do not pass through a pupal stage.
"white waxy material .. may ... make a mess." My bathroom is a mess at times. Could be reworded.
"the first instar (larval stage)" The word doesn't refer to the larva, it refers to the developmental stage at each moult, up to maturity
"the other stages are sedentary" No, they are *sessile*, "sedentary" refers to posture, and they are found invariably on the underside of the leaf they have settled on.

The hook is inexact; while this species of whitefly has invaded the Pacific islands and part of the Tropics bordering the Indian Ocean, it is mercifully still absent from the Mediterranean, as well as East Africa, and it isn't a pest at all in Central America.

Unfit to appear on the main page in this shape. 129.110.242.8 (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, AfadsBad, resuming your attack on me on this DYK template page while cravenly hiding behind an IP name?

The source for the third bullet point states "The final and fourth immature stage is considered the pupa of this species." The same source uses the word "sedentary". The other points you raise are pretty trivial. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The above comments by another editor appeared while I was preparing the rest of my review. Accordingly I'll await a response by Cwmhiraeth. In the meantime, I can confirm that the creation and nomination date, quality and formatting of references and article length are fine. Regarding the comments added above, most relate to prose, but the third bullet point appears to raise a dispute over facts, so this will need to be addressed. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I am preparing some comments offline; will add them in a few hours. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 08:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

(←) Addressing each of the bullet points above in turn:

I feel that ...has spread to many of the world's tropical and subtropical regions gives adequate context to the sentence which follows it, It is a major pest of agricultural crops in many of the hottest parts of the world.. The sentence has tweaked for clarity since the comment above was made.
"many of the hottest parts of the world" is inexact. One of the references says that mortality increases above about 35 °C. Another says that this species thrives in a warm and dry climate. The "hottest parts of the world" makes me think of deserts, and that's not a place where this species thrives. Be more exact. 129.110.242.8 (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

West Africa, India and other parts of the Indian Ocean - fair point; "other" could be dropped. Could more detail be added in its place, perhaps - i.e. whereabouts in the Indian Ocean (did I see on one of the maps that Réunion was mentioned?)

I had actually dropped the word "other" before you made that suggestion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

When they emerge from the pupal casing... - Ref [1] states The final and fourth immature stage is considered the pupa of this species, and ref [2] states The fourth instar cuticle on which most of the taxonomy is based is referred to as the "pupal case". So the term is in general use in the sources, even though the order of which it is a member is apparently not characterised by a pupal stage according to the comment above. NB. I am not a biologist, so I would appreciate guidance on whether I am interpreting this correctly.

The biology page of the NHM site (#5) states "... emerge from their unlikely-looking "puparia" " and you can see what a "puparium" is here so I think "pupal case is acceptable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The word "pupa" specifically refers to a developmental stage in holometabolous insects where the larval body is dissolved and rebuilt from the imaginal disks. Some hemimetabolous insects have evolved a feature that looks and behaves much like a pupa, but is anatomically completely different; much of the tissue is retained. The word for that is "puparium", if I'm not too wrong. I wouldn't take the Hawaiian Aggie Extension as an authority on insect anatomy. The farmer doesn't care about anatomy, he cares about his crop. Nothing wrong with that. 129.110.242.8 (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

... make a mess - well, it's a bit informal, I suppose. The exact quote from the source is creates an unsightly nuisance, and I would be tempted to use this quote in the article, giving this: this may be dispersed by the wind and "[create] an unsightly nuisance".

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The section about crop damage should be completely reworked. Crop damage is important, it's why we care because it's an invasive species prone to major outbreaks. There's three modes of damage, through sucking, through mould that grows on honeydew and though transmission of viral disease. Two are more important than the third, and that needs to be worked out clearly. Then there was a major outbreak on Hawaii that was so bad that the mouldy, honeydew-infused wax that was blown around actually gave people allergies. This needs to be worked out, in your own words. You need to reproduce the thoughts in the reference - computer engineers call it clean room design, but what you are doing is retain the sentence structure, and replacing words with other words, and that's where the inexactitude creeps in. 129.110.242.8 (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The first instar (larval stage) - Ref [2] states There are four immature instars, the first three being referred to as larvae, which looks fine to me, unless there is a subtlety of wording I am missing.

It's inexact language again. In insect anatomy later instars, once they look much like the adult but are not yet sexually mature are called "nymphs". This use of language confuses "larva", "instar", and "nymph". Instars 2 and 3 are larval, too, in this species. 129.110.242.8 (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

the other stages are sedentary - The sources use "sedentary", and looking at the differences in meaning between "sedentary" and "sessile" in biology suggests that sedentary is correct anyway, because to me sessile suggests permanent fixing to a surface (e.g. a limpet, I suppose), and the post-Stage 1 whiteflies have legs that are atrophied but still present. That's how I interpret it anyway.

A barnacle would be a better example, as they cement themselves to a rock while limpets can move around. ;-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The NHM site specifically says that instars 2 to 4 do not move at all. They do behave like barnacles. 129.110.242.8 (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

As to whether the hook is inexact: well, it doesn't specify that it is a major agricultural pest worldwide; nor does it specify that it is a pest in certain areas. In my view, that is fine, because the article goes on to reveal the exact details (i.e. that it is a pest in certain parts of the world). The hook is intended to draw the Main Page reader in to the article, where they can read the full story.

The thing is this: this species has emerged as a major pest in parts of the tropics outside its native range, yet inside it it is so unremarkable that is wasn't even formally described until the 1960s or so. Certainly the Florida customs officials that kept intercepting it in the 1950s didn't think much of it. Now that's interesting and more to the point. 129.110.242.8 (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a start-class article submitted to DYK. If it was nominated for GA it would need greater depth of coverage. Please feel free to add to the article if you think there is anything vital left out, but the points you are raising are in the main not relevant to the DYK nomination where I believe it meets the DYK criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not that anything vital is left out, it's about the inaccuracies and plain wrong things still in there. If approved, this article is going to get a link from the main page and tens of thousands of views. Right now it is in no shape for that. 129.110.242.8 (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I will wait for responses from both editors before continuing the review. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

(←) OK, in response to further comments above.

"many of the hottest parts of the world" is inexact... – would this suggested wording (in grey) be acceptable to both? and has spread to many of the world's tropical and subtropical regions, where it is a major pest of agricultural crops.
The word "pupa" specifically refers to a developmental stage in holometabolous insects... – to be honest, I'm struggling with what, to me, look like fine distinctions in meaning. Question to 129.110.242.8: are you taking issue with the wording in the article, or with the sources, or both? If the current sources don't address this particular point to your satisfaction, are you able to provide alternatives? At the moment, I am not persuaded that this part needs more than a small rewording/clarification at most.
The section about crop damage should be completely reworked... – Perhaps, if this was being presented to GA; but at the moment this is a new article whose aim is to be presented to readers on the Main Page and, hopefully, edited collaboratively to expand it. The important question at the moment is: is there anything factually incorrect or has anything been misrepresented? I don't believe it has, according to my reading of the source used.
We still have a query re. "sedentary" v "sessile". I appreciate that the reference says that stages 2 to 4 don't move (although the exact wording is "[not] capable of active movement" – is there a distinction between active movement and plain "movement"?), but the source specifically uses the word "sedentary". I'm sorry, but as a DYK reviewer I would want to see a source with the word "sessile" before I could accept a change in the wording of the article.
With regard to statements and words which 129.110.242.8 believes to be inaccurate, I would appreciate 129.110.242.8's suggestions of alternative wording, which I can then evaluate in conjunction with the sources.

I'll await responses. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather say " and has spread to many of the world's tropical and subtropical regions. Outside its native range it is a major pest of agricultural crops." The National History Museum specifically says that the Florida customs officials that kept intercepting it in the 1950s didn't think much about it because it and similar species presented no concern in the countries it came from.
The distinction between "pupa" and "puparium" is actually a big thing. They may look superficially similar, but the anatomy is completely different; they are different things four which exist different words. I do notice that ref. 1 talks about the "pupal casing", on the other hand, on the other hand ref. 5 mentions their "unlikely-looking 'puparia'". Ref. 1 is from the University of Hawaii's Agricultural extension, and ref. 5 is from the National History Museum. If I wanted to know about insect anatomy I'd talk to the curator of a museum, if I wanted to know about best farming practice I'd trust the Aggie Extension. This is a case of editorial distinction, and weighing references in how trustworthy they are.
"Sedentary" vs. "sessile": OED gives examples for both "sedentary" and "sessile" referring to permanently attached animals. However, it also gives "sedentary" as the opposite of "migratory". I think it's a matter of taste which one to pick. I'd still prefer "sessile", but I'm not hung up on it.
In the biology section it says "first instar (larval stage)". Later, in the crop damage section, there is "first three instar nymphs". "Larva", "nymph" and "instar" are well-defined technical terms, each with a distinct meaning. "Instar" refers to a developmental stage between moults before adulthood, the "imago". A "larva" is a juvenile form that is very different from the adult form, and a "nymph" is a juvenile form that looks quite like the adult. What now? Is the first instar a larva or a nymph? Or should it be referred to as "crawler", as the NHM does? How about instars 2 to 4? How to call these? This needs to be worked out.
From what I understand, the first instar does not feed at all but moves around to find a suitable feeding site - always on the undersids of the leaf - and then quickly moults and settles down.
Concerns about too close paraphrasing in the crop damage section. It's not the words themselves, but the sentence structure from ref. 1 is distinctly recognizeable. I'd really prefer the section to be called "Crop damage" instead of "Damage done", and it could be a clearer. As with whitefly infestations in general, it isn't the infestation itself that kills the plant, it is the fact that the honeydew excreta cause mould growth that overwhelms the plant. Plus, this particular pest, unlike most other whiteflies, is a host of plant viruses. This needs to be laid out in the authors own words and sentences. 129.110.242.8 (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, Hassocks, I expect you are regretting taking on this DYK review! AfadsBad is still hiding behind an IP number but this is part of an ongoing campaign of harassment that has already involved about six of my DYK nominations. As to this one, I have made alterations in the lead sentence on distribution as suggested by AfadBad but I regard the other points as pretty trivial and things that should be discussed on the article's talk page rather than here. They have nothing to do with the DYK criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You shouldn't regard anatomy as trivial because it isn't. Neither is use of precise language - there is nothing but language that can transmit thoughts between persons, and that's why scientists and tradesmen use technical terms to describe their work. They do this so the next person will exactly know what the first person did and can build on it. 129.110.242.8 (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

(←)OK, so as I see it (based on the comments at the 18:06, 3 May 2014 timestamp), these queries from 129.110.242.8 are outstanding:

Pupa vs Pupal case vs Puparium: choice of the most appropriate term.

Changed to puparium

Choice of the most appropriate term for each of the four stages referred to under "Biology".

Removed the word larva

Behaviour of stage 1 in relation to feeding.

Removed the word instar

The "Damage done" section in general.

Changed section name to "Crop damage". I don't believe there is any degree of close paraphrasing and the order of the different forms of damage used is a logical sequence. Neither of the sources emphasizes the mould as the worst form of damage so I won't either. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

To my mind, these are not major points. We are in danger of reaching an impasse. I may need to bring more eyes to this from WP:Insects and/or WT:DYK, but I would prefer it if we can bring the article to a mutually satisfactory status. A few tweaks and additions as above should achieve this. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 17:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I have resolved the above points. In general, where the naming used by the two sources conflicts (larva/nymph etc), what AfadsBad says about favouring the NHM site on biology and the agricultural site on crop damage seems sensible. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I have examined the sentences in the "Crop damage" paragraph. This paragraph lists and summarises three types of crop damage – direct, indirect and vector-based (vectoral?). While that is the same order used in ref [1], it appears to be the logical order in which to write about them. I am not persuaded that the writing comes close enough to the source to constitute close paraphrasing. So, in summary:

Creation date is fine
Article is long enough and beyond Stub-class
Main points are covered in enough detail to meet DYK criteria
Sources appear reliable, and several have been used
References are correctly formatted
Hook fact is clearly supported in references

...so I am marking this as verified. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)