Talk:Parasitoid/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 15:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

It should take a day or two to prepare this assessment. It would be useful if you could mention if your previous experience in biology was by way of field work or by way of lab work. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking it on. I see no reason to answer questions about my background: the GA process exclusively concerns the article, not the editor. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Normally, it does not matter though here I was hoping to save some time by tailoring my statements to your background. If you are not involved in either lab work or field work then I'll assume you may have an educational position at some level. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I find your position utterly mystifying, if not inappropriate.

Nothing ghastly or inappropriate. Your articles, 3 of which I have now read, seem to mix in graduate level narrative with undergraduate level narrative in your articles in an unpredictable way. Since you are not in any way required to indicate your background on Wikipedia unless you want to, then I am left to guess as to why you are mixing the level of academic narrative selectively in these three articles. The article for Wikipedia seems to state that the median level of article at Wikipedia is written somewhere between 1st year and 2nd year undergraduate level. Your articles appear to include material selectively from the graduate level of study unexpectedly and occasionally somewhat at odds with the Wikipedia median. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Start assessment:

You appear to be blending the Parasitoid and Parasitism articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Not blended, but reversed. You currently have two articles in the GAN list and I have assessed both of them in my hand written notes. My plan was to do the Parasitism article first though pressed the start review tab in reverse order. The parasitism article should be ready to go now on its own review page. I shall start typing the correct one here on the Parasitoid article during the next few days below. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Re-start assessment with correct outline:

0 Lede

Lede appears a bit on the short side. Possibly add a paragraph to summarize your 6 main evolutionary strategies among parasites, and then single out parasitoids. Also, the contrast to parasites should be more clear at the very start of the lede.

Done.

That works though the lede still appears short. It might useful to add a short paragraph on the spectrum of evolutionary strategies. My own preference is your use of the word spectrum to discuss this topic rather than "continuum of severity" which seems overly symbolic and not entirely accurate by comparison. The first sentence of the lede could use one extra word, "behavioural and evolutionary strategies." JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The phrase is used only as a direct quotation, in the citation itself, so we can't change it. I've extended the lead further.

Your lede sentence has been changed to : "A parasitoid is a parasite, an organism that lives in close association with its host and at the host's expense, but which sooner or later kills it." It would look better as two sentences namely: "A parasitoid is a parasite which sooner or later kills its host. It is an organism that lives in close association with its host, and at the host's expense and eventual death." JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, you may be right from one aesthetic point of view, but there's a major consideration for the 1st sentence of the lead, which is that it alone is picked up and used as a summary of the whole article by Wikipedia's own popup boxes, by Google and by who knows who else. Therefore, it's really worth giving a 'complete' picture in sentence #1. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

1 History

They should "main strategies" rather than "major strategies" as I read this. Your graphic here uses the word "continuum" which appears disassociated. The graphic illustration gives me two extrema (parasites and predators) along with one intermediate transition at the parasitoids. That seems to fall short of a "continuum" where I would otherwise expect to see more of a gradation of multiple intermediate points of transition which define the continuity. Two endpoints with a middle point do not a "continuum" make. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Main it is. Added a ref for the 'continuum'. To be clear: parasitoids are at an extreme, always killing the host. Some other parasites are very aggressive, killing the host rather quickly; many more, much less so, hence a continuum in that direction. Predators, like parasitoids, typically kill their prey; micropredators often never do so, and many parasitoids take a long time to do so, again something of a spectrum.

'Main' looks better. There is a difference in the symbolic use of 'continuum' and 'continuum of severity'. In preference to both of them, my preference is your use of the word 'spectrum' to describe this matter. Please be consistent to apply 'spectrum' to this topic in your discussion and not jump between the terms. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Done.

2 A spectrum of strategies

These appear to be "main strategies" and not "major strategies". It would be nice to them numbered as well for clarity. There is a vest host of terms between parasites and parasitoids which ought to be addressed somewhere, either here or in the parasitism article, to distinguish associated terms such as the behavior of carnivores, scavengers, exploitation, environmental exploitation, and even the process of suckling (one individual consuming the resources gained from another). JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Already said 'main' above. Numbering is specially pointless here as the cluttering numbering will never be used later in the article: all we're doing is giving an overview of the diversity from the point of view of strategy, then we give an overview taxonomically.

2.1 Definition

The graphic in this section should have the caption updated to reflect your newly edited use of "paraitoidism" in order to be consistent with your text. Your caption should drop the comment of 'continuum' of severity fully and substitute the new wording: 'Strategy of paraditoidism compared with typical parasite (not killing its host) and predator (killing its prey immediately).' Or something like that. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Done.

2.2 Strategies

If the graphic in this section is only about parasitoidal wasps then it is redundant and already covered in the article just recently promoted, and the graphic should be removed as redundant.

It is not. For example, the phorid fly illustrated a little further on is a koinobiont endoparasite.

Can the caption be updated to be consistent with the wasp article done just last week. New caption would look better as: 'Two strategies found within parasitoidism: Ectoparasites are usually idiobiont, endoparasites koinobiont.' JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Done.

3 Influence on host behavior

Is there anything to be said here about parasitic viruses (malaria), and is there any tie in with results from oncological implications for destruction of tissue, etc, in the host. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The malaria parasite is a protozoan, not a virus, and it's a parasite, not a parasitoid.

The malaria part was mistyped by me here. The oncology part deals with mutations which become virulent and destroy or consume tissue for the purpose of their own progress. Is this relevant to the process found in the parasitoid which eats at host until the host dies. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

OK. I've answered about oncology elsewhere: cancers are not parasites as they're the same actual organism (mutated) as the host.

Its your call about the oncology matter. Please link me to where you mention already discussing oncology in this article as you say you have done so "elsewhere". JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant we had discussed it on these pages, both here and on Talk:Parasitism/GA1#5 Evolutionary ecology in fact. As stated, I don't believe it's relevant to either article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

4 Taxonomic range

4.1 Microbial diseases

4.2 Plants

4.3 Crustaceans

4.4 Nematodes

4.5 Nematomorphs

4.6 Insects

4.6.1 Parasitoid wasps

The other sections in section IV are fine though this one seems overdone since there is a separate article for it which may be linked as a see also. This part on parasitoid wasps should be no more that 5-6 sentences maximum in this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, edited it down (the main article is already linked). Note however that wasps form a large percentage of all known parasitoids.

4.6.2 Other insects

4.7 Vertebrates

You have significantly trimmed the vertebrates section, though its unclear why. What is the best title for this article, is it parasitoid to describe types of organisms, or, is it parasitoidism to describe the behavior or such organisms? JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

For focus. Parasitoid seems the best and shortest title, and it clearly covers the -ism (which redirects here); we say Insectivore (not Insectivory). Guess either would do; the -ism is a much less familiar term than the -oid, actually quite a good reason for keeping things as they are. If you wish, we can put the -ism in boldface in the lead too, but given that the two terms are so close (and cognate) I've not thought it worth doing really.

Please note that you actually have put in some time for a set of articles titled: Parasitism, Parasitoid, and Parasitoid wasps, presumably as a tight family of related articles. "Parasitoids" would name a group of animals, whereas parasitoid could refer to an animal behaviour article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

We basically almost always name articles in the singular, thus Insect for the Insecta/Insects, etc. Note also that as far as search terms go, it doesn't matter a whole lot because there are redirects for everything anyone thinks is plausible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

5 In biological pest control

You call them "among the most widely used" but do not give the statistical breakdown. The other mechanism are, for example, the introduction of virulent targeted predators or toxins. What are the percentages of which approach is used? Is this known, or is it just the cheapest method of control available? JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a matter for other articles, not this one.

Can you mention if it is more often or less often used than pesticides? If it is not a matter or cost, then is it a question of selecting the best mechanism of pest control for specific infestations? JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe any figures exist. Biological control is extremely cost-effective (cost/benefit = 1:250) but more variable in its effects, which reduce rather than remove pests completely. Said and cited that for you.

The newly cited material is rather good here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.

6 In culture

6.1 Charles Darwin

Why single out the wasps here? What about tapeworms, or any other biological invasion of a host? Is there something about the Victorian era which is eluding me here are being especially noteworthy to the exclusion of other themes? JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It's just that as a matter of historical fact, it was the wasps that horrified Darwin. While it's not for editors to speculate on his motives, he certainly observed that the parasitic wasps evolved a lifestyle which certainly destroys their hosts, often by slow degrees, whereas people and domestic animals often live(d) many years with minimal ill effects from tapeworms.

6.2 In science fiction

If you are serious about this subject of "The Biology and Science of Ridley Scott's Aliens" then this might be profitable. There is a large market for books in popular science which attract many readers, possibly you have larger plans for this subject elsewhere or here on Wikipedia? 15:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)JohnWickTwo (talk)

I think we have "the main points" covered here. There are already extensive articles (linked) on science fiction and its alien species.

My comments have been updated above. It would be nice to bring this assessment to some sort of conclusion over the next day or two. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I have responded promptly to every comment.

You have been prompt. See my new comments above. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I have replied to all above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Assessment closing comments

The submitting editor has presented 3 related articles for review, one of which I have reluctantly passed as a GA article at Parasitoid wasps. The 3 articles are parasitoid wasps, parasitoid, and parasitism. I say reluctant because the graphics used were of a somewhat simplistic nature, with the appearance of having been copied over into Wikipedia from power point presentations often used by lecturers when they are able to supplement poor diagrams with verbal supplementary discussions to offset inadequacies in the diagrams used in a lecture setting. Nonetheless, the submitting editor appears to be writing his articles at either a graduate level, or more likely a post-graduate level of expertise, which made the narrative in the article make-up for deficits in the diagrams and that article on parasitoid wasps received a GA assessment. The current article titled Parasitoid has a very poor lede sentence at its very start which the submitting editor refuses to fix, in spite of extensive discussion and options covered in the above assessment. I have also tried to re-write it into a better form for the submitting editor which was then ignored. Some of the graphics apparently made by the submitting editor himself remain very poor in this article, again with the appearance of being copied from power point presentations which lecturers often use in classes where they supplement poor diagrams with their own words to compensate for these deficits. The graphics can be easily remedied by making them into tables, which the submitting editor refuses to do. With my having put in several hours into this assessment, I am reluctant to now quick fail the article as not yet ready for GA promotion. The submitting editor is free to re-submit the article for assessment by another editor after the prescribed 2-3 week waiting period and to reconsider making useful enhancements to this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)