Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Traumatic insemination/archive2

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 17:32, 22 September 2009 [1].

---

Traumatic insemination

Nominator(s): Raul654 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Traumatic insemination/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Traumatic insemination/archive2

A little something I've been working on for a while. I nominated it 4 months ago and it failed, but I think I've subsequently addressed all the issues from that first nomination. Raul654 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment The article's references mix YYYY-MM-DD, Day Month Year, and Month Day, Year dates. It is best to pick one format and stick to that. --an odd name 17:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Done. In cases where there is a full date, I use YYYY-MM-DD, and in cases where there is a month and a year, I use Month, Year. Raul654 (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  Nice. A very minor flaw: some of the "Month, Year" ones are actually "Month Year" (no comma): to be fully consistent, remove the commas from the rest, or talk with the cite template people about adding them. (I prefer removing the commas, as in most articles I've read here; just adding them in the cite template month attributes would look bad.) --an odd name 23:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Done; thanks. Images need alt text per WP:ALT. Shubinator (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added captions to the second and third images. The first and fourth do not need them, per WP:ALT, because the alt text would be identical to the caption. Raul654 (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Also, is the indefinite semi-protection necessary? Shubinator (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, I semi'ed it when it was on the main page because it was getting quite a lot of vandalism. (Not surprising given the subject matter). I've unprotected. Raul654 (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Shubinator (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The way to mark that any alt text would be redundant is to use something like "|alt=See caption."; omitting alt text entirely doesn't work because a screen reader will then read something not-that-relevant such as the name of the file containing the image. However, I don't see why the alt text would be identical to the caption in the images in question: they both contain useful info that's not in the caption, and the gist of that info can be put into the alt text. Also, the existing alt text could be improved, as a good deal of it repeats the caption. The only useful non-redundant text I see are "A microscopic image of the spiny" and "vagina"; most of the rest of the alt text could be removed, with more visual details added. Eubulides (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've further revised the alt text of the pics. Raul654 (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, much better. Your eyes were much better than mine would have been in picking out the gist of thos images. Eubulides (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

• The phrase "being bred" is used a few times in the article to refer to the act of insemination. Although I've never heard this phrase used in this way, it is apparently an acceptable, though uncommon definition (8th of 8 in the Random House Dictionary). If other reviewers are also unfamiliar with the use of this phrase, perhaps it should be changed to something more straightforward. Is it perhaps a British usage? I've honestly never heard it before.
• "—Gilbert Waldbauer" Why is this source credit just sitting there unassociated with a quote?

Kaldari (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• • In this article, "insemination" implies traumatic insemination; breeding implies non-traumatic insemination. In the case of the bean weavil caption, the latter is correct. (Bean weavils don't traumatically inseminate)
    • I don't see this. Every instance of the phrase in the article refers to some kind of traumatic insemination. Kaldari (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Assuming the phrase you are talking about is "bred" or "breeding" - it occurs four times in this article. The first time, in the bean weavil penis caption, it does not refer to traumatic insemination - it refers to non-traumatic insemination (good old-fashioned penis-into-vagina breeding). The second time, in the interspecies section, it is talking about TI. The third and fourth time, in the "Similiar mating practices" section, it refers to non-traumatic insemination. I've removed the second instance to make this more clear. Raul654 (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I missed the last two instances. I guess I was confused about the weevil caption. Bean weevil sex sounds pretty traumatic, but I guess it doesn't meet the technical definition of the term. Thanks for fixing the other instance. Kaldari (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know what the deal is with the hanging credit. It has something to do with the quote template. I've switched over the the more familiar blockquote and removed the citation (there's already a reference there). Raul654 (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • In IE8 and Firefox, it's hard to tell the Waldbauer part is a blockquote because it is close to the squirrel mating plug image and the indent doesn't get applied (in IE8 or the latest Firefox release, at least) where the image juts in (depending on window size). I think the blockquote fonts should be shrunk slightly to show they are quotes and not plain body paragraphs—or their background color should be changed, or some other style tweak—to avoid any (unwarranted) cries of plagiarism. I actually thought they were body paras until I saw the source credit (when it was there). --an odd name 01:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I found an easier solution -- I just re-aligned the squirrel pic to the right side. Raul654 (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Image review by NuclearWarfare - The four images are fine to use. NW (Talk) 18:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Decide if you're going to go "page" or "p." and be consistent.
  • Done. Raul654 (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Current ref 16 (B. N. Ruck..) needs a last access date
  • Done. Raul654 (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Decide if your references gare going to be last name first or first name first and standardize.
  • Done. Raul654 (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• What is up with the links and wikilinks in current ref 15 (Rezac)? Surely we don't need to link terms in the references?
  • Fixed.
• What makes the Holland, Erik ref reliable? iUniverse is a self-publishing company. http://www.iuniverse.com/
  • For the paragraphs from Holland that I cite, Holland in turn cites J. Carayon's "Insemination traumatique heterosexuelle et homosexuelle chez Xylocoris maculipennis" (1974, Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Sciences). I've provided the citation, and requested the article (although I don't speak french so I won't be able to get much out of it) Raul654 (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't we be better off referencing the original source then? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
      • That is not proper academic citation style. If someone gets information from document A, which in turn references document B, that person is supposed to cite document A, not B. Optionally, that person can also state that A references B, so that anyone who follows up on that citation can easily find both documents. In this case, that is exactly what I do - cite both. I'm not going to cite just the original, because (a) that's improper academic style, and (b) possibly a mischaracterization (since I don't know what it says because I don't yet have access to the original - I should be able to get to it after labor day - and even when I do, it won't be of much use to me since I can't read french.) Raul654 (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm uncomfortable with citing a self-published source unless the guy is an expert in the field. Is he? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • • I've added yet another reference to that section which also cites the french paper, making 4 references for that paragraph total. IMO, that should be more than sufficient. (The new reference is John R. Krebs, Nicholas B. Davies - An introduction to behavioural ecology) Raul654 (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've now dealt with all outstanding issues. Raul654 (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Names of genera, such as Auchenacantha, Citellina, Passalurus, Austroxyris and Pomphorhynchus, require capitalisation. William Avery (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - All genera and species need to be italicised. 89.240.41.65 (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe all issues have been addressed. Raul654 (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I am beginning a look-over now and will jot down queries below - some of the paragraphs are small and give the text a choppy appearance. I will make straightforward changes, but please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Use in the animal kingdom section could do with some buffing - I note that all are invertebrates and many are worms of some sort, so some overview or covering statement indicating what groups of animals the phenomenon is most prevalent in would be good (if possible). Furthermore, I do acknowledge that the phenomenon has been most studied in bedbugs, but if it were possible it'd be good to embellish some other species.

I note that all are invertebrates - this was already noted in the intro, but I've added a second mention in the Use in the animal kingdom section. It's not a coincidence that they are invertebrates -- TI doesn't work in animals with a closed circulatory system, which limits the practice exclusively to invertebrates.

so some overview or covering statement indicating what groups of animals the phenomenon is most prevalent in would be good (if possible). - there is, insofar as I am aware, no unifying group or characteristic for the taxa I've listed there other than their practice of TI (and consequently their open circulatory systems and lack of a spine, both of which are mentioned in the article).

Furthermore, I do acknowledge that the phenomenon has been most studied in bedbugs, but if it were possible it'd be good to embellish some other species. - can you be more specific please? Raul654 (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of the critters listed could do with a couple of words indicating what they are too.

Done. Raul654 (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Well-written article about a fascinating and disgusting topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment The article misrepresents evolutionary theory by its use of the word "reason" in this statement: "... Suggested reasons for its development include...". This implies, or might be interpreted to imply, that evolutionary developments must have a reason or purpose - which is not true. In this case because Traumatic Insemination causes harm, the uninformed reader might be led to believe that there must be a reason why such a behaviour would evolve. Evolutionary development of a population species is random without any purpose, subject to the confines of what is possible as determined by the physical laws of biology, chemistry, physics, the current environment, and the current developmental state of the population. All that is required is that the development does not result in permanent decrease in population over time resulting in extinction. I would suggest the following be used instead: "Suggested origins for its development include...". Other language in the article has similar problems: "counter-adaption", "as a way to overcome". These phrases imply that there is a causal relationship between separate evolutionary developments in a population when there is none. The "mating plug" did not cause the evolution of Traumatic insemination. At most, it can only be speculated that the mating plug "enabled" the evolution of Traumatic insemination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drothmailbox (talk • contribs)

• Support with comments. It's interesting, and approachable to a non-specialist. I performed some fixes but I have a few outstanding issues I couldn't deal with:
  • In the "Use in the animal kingdom", can we make the Opisthobranchia entry a complete sentence for consistency with the others? I would take a stab at it (har har) but I'm afraid of changing the meaning.
  • Can anything be said in the Gastropod snails entry?
  • Someone went around and changed certain instances of "penises" to "penes", introducing inconsistency. I'm going to revert but not sure what is desired.
  • "Traumatic insemination appears to be another of the evolutionarily stable reproductive strategies that may initially appear questionable or even counterproductive ..." No citation in this para; are we to assume its covered by 22? I reviewed the source and it does not seem to support those statements. Is the para meant to summarize previous sourced statements?

--Andy Walsh (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree with the Comment above that the article misrepresents evolutionary theory by its use of the word "reason" in certain sections. I tried to reword the lead but I could not fix the whole article. The article needs to be reworded so that it is not suggested that evolution "evolves" to attain certain goals or for specific purposes, or reasons. Examples:

"The evolution of the mating plug is sometimes cited as a reason for the evolutionary development of traumatic insemination."

"Many reasons for the origins of traumatic insemination as a mating strategy have been suggested. One position is that traumatic insemination evolved in response to the development of the mating plug, a reproductive mechanism used by many species."

The blockquote in the article does not support the view that evolution occurs to achieve specific goals or "in response" to anything. —mattisse (Talk) 19:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Under the section "Mechanics", why is there a description of the human circulatory system, when the article sources support that traumatic insemination occurs in invertebrates only? The implication seems to be that traumatic insemination applies to humans, but the article sources do not support this interpretation.

I agree with comment below that there are too many long quotations

I have tried to fix some of the wording I objected to above. Please see Introduction to evolution for reasons that evolution cannot be posited to "drive" certain results. I also removed a wikilink to a strategy of game theory article that had nothing to do with evolution. I have added a {{fact}} tag for "appear questionable or even counterproductive" per Andy Walsh's comment above. —mattisse (Talk) 19:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose My most substantive comments from the previous FAC have not been addressed. Repeating them here and striking what has been resolved:

Whole article

• Overuse of long quotes (esp in the 'Homosexual traumatic insemination' section). I'd get rid of all of them; much better to synthesize what several researchers have reported vs quoting a few in long form. Short inline quotes are fine in an article of any size but long quotes, I think, should be avoided in short articles unless absolutely needed. NOTE: This is better than before.

Lead

• Every paragraph starts with 'Traumatic insemination' - suggest mixing it up a bit to improve readability and flow.
• Last two paras are two sentences each. Suggest combining them.

Use in the animal kingdom

• Just a list as is. Suggestion: Much more discussion about how this method of reproduction is represented in the animal kingdom is needed, citing as examples from the list (hopefully, thematically organized somehow into paragraphs). The flatworm / penis fencing bullet is the only one that I think is currently sufficient.

Insect anatomy

• Seems to be unnecessary as a stand alone section. Suggest merging into the Mechanics section, perhaps putting much of the general background info in a ref note. Seems like too much of an aside right now that hinders flow.

Interspecies traumatic insemination

• One paragraph sections, especially at level two, are to be avoided. I think this paragraph would fit nicely at the end of an improved 'Use in the animal kingdom' section.

-- mav (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sourcing concerns I have found no concerns, and the use of sources is rather strong (from the pages I could check). 1. There are many quotes that are not directly attributed. This is an easy fix to add some in. 2. In "Similar mating practices", there is a quote that is not cited after the quote. This should be addressed. The quotes should also be attributed to a source for clarity. The one is from TimesOnline, so this should be identified. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

I'm afraid this is an impossibly shabby article. When it appeared here in April, it was the merest of stubs. It has since grown, but there is almost no narrative and little coherence to the ideas presented. Consider the lead. Is traumatic insemination found only (or even mainly) among organisms with open circulatory systems? If so, why is that fact not mentioned right away? Instead, why do we have a convoluted first sentence that distracts the reader with words like "wound," and "abdominal cavity?" Why not a sentence like, "Traumatic insemination is a mating practice found (mainly) among some species of invertebrates/arthropods with open circulatory systems in which the male pierces the female's abdomen with his penis in order to deposit sperm into the hemolymph for further diffusion to the ovaries." After this you should be telling us something directly related to that first sentence, such as, "Although the open entrance wound in the abdomen usually heals, it can sometimes be infected and endanger the female's health." Instead you have a disconnected sentence, "The process is detrimental to the female's health," and it is only in the next sentence that you begin to lay out the reasons. Next, consider, "The injection of sperm and ejaculatory fluids into the hemocoel can also trigger an immune reaction in the female." Why "sperm and ejaculatory fluids?" Why not "seminal fluid," which contains sperm? In other words, why not, "The injection of seminal fluid into the circulatory system can also trigger an immune reaction in the female?" It is best not to overload the first half of the lead with too many technical terms. You then have two sentences, which seem completely out of place in a lead "perspective." Why do we need to know this special mechanism in the bed bug at this stage, when we are really wondering, "Which arthropods (or other organisms) have adopted this practice? "

Pretty much the entire article has this sort of disconnectedness of narrative. It is not an issue of tweaking of prose here and there (or even everywhere), or improving the section on evolution or some other section. I'm afraid you need to think about this article at a higher level first. What is it you want to say, why it is important, and how do you want to say it. Even your nomination note seems halfhearted, hardly an invitation to the reader to go on an amazing ride. I'm not convinced that you are excited about this topic. Yet. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.