Talk:Coccinellidae/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 16:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77[edit]

  • Done.
  • It would be better if you have an image of the white-spotted example beetle you bring up in-text (so, if you bring up Vibidia in-text, you should have an image of Vibidia; or, if you have an image of Calvia, you should instead bring up Calvia in-text) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.
  • It would be good to note that the ladybug fossils record is hardly known at all (like https://doi.org/10.1002/spp2.1321 describes only the 4th fossil coccinellid species), and maybe clarify that the Baltic amber has the richest ladybug fossil collection (more than that they are simply diverse there) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cited, and done.
  • If they evolved in the Cretaceous, is it known how they dispersed across the entire world? Or even which side of the world they evolved on? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly a much richer fossil record would be needed for that. Hennig's progression rule tried to deduce such things from modern distributions but has been criticised as too sweeping.
  • "Depending on resource availability, the larvae pass through four instars over 10–14 days" kinda vague, does resource availability dictate how long all 4 instars take, or if there will be instars? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded.
  • Not the same thing, it's at least potentially reversible.
  • Why do you have a giant aside about the ladybug diversity of Britain? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • the article seems to talk almost exclusively about American and British ladybugs, what about the rest of the world? Like, the In culture section is almost entirely about Western Europe, except for the last sentence which mentions something in America Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has since spread to much of western Europe, reaching the UK in 2004" this implies it made its own way to Europe rather than being purposefully introduced. It's best you combine the 2 sentences you have on Asian ladybugs in Europe, and I think it makes sense to put down when they were introduced to Western Europe seeing as you did that for North America Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the Europe date. I've put the spread-and-UK sentence after the Europe sentence, which seems to work well, as in that context the spread does not in any way contradict the "deliberate introduction" which precedes it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing as there are only 4 fossil species, it shouldn't be too cluttering to enumerate them Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. There were three tribes known by then, and certainly more species. Added names of genera. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first coccenellid fossil species was described in 2018 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12542-018-0409-5 Serangium twardowskii and S. gedanicum; another in 2019 https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4571.2.7 S. kalandyki; and the most recent one in 2020 https://doi.org/10.1002/spp2.1321 Electrolotis hoffeinsorum Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cited these two genera to the sources, thanks. I'll maybe create I've created at least a stub for Serangium so it's not a redlink. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should explicitly state that there are only 4 fossil species Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dunkleosteus77 But there aren't, and I'm far from sure the statement was even true back when. There are at least 3 spp. in Baltosidis (Microweiseini); there is Electrolotis in the Sticholotidini; at least 3 spp. of Serangium; at least 1 Rhyzobius; and at least 1 Nephus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added in text, with citation.
  • Replaced.
  • Replaced.
  • Replaced.

References[edit]

  • 11: Removed, there are enough sources for this point already.
  • 25: Page added.
  • 53: replaced ref, added more detail from [51].
  • website refs should have an access date, a lot in the In culture section (and a few elsewhere) are missing this Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added throughout.
  • Formatted; for some reason WorldCat provides an OCLC instead.
  • Cited in full.
  • it seems ref 48 was supposed to be a page range? There's a stray dash after the page number Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked the source, found 2 pages of relevance and added them.
  • Found a better source.
  • refs 50, 58, and 59 should use both |transtitle= and |language= parameters Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added those.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coccinellidae/GA1&oldid=1126629542"