Wikipedia:Peer review/Termite/archive1

Termite

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see what the broader community thinks about the current status of this article for FA. Before I started editing this article, it was in a horrible state and I made a goal to myself to get this to GA. After an exceptional copyedit and impressive GA review were initiated, I believe this article is almost at its greatest and now I have a goal to get it to FA. Because of this, I would like to see if any noticeable issues still stand before I nominate this for FA.

Thanks, Burklemore1 (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

In greater detail, this is a really interesting and well-written article that deserves to be FA status. I think it's very comprehensive, relatively easy to read, and has some of the best use of images to illustrate the text that I've seen on Wikipedia. One thing that could be improved is making the lead and first 1-2 sections easier to read for lay readers. One way that could be done is to invert the sentences so that simpler information comes before the more complex zoological descriptions. I hope this helps. Good luck at FA! --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Tom for the comments, perhaps from what you have said we should close the PR here and just nominate? I could definitely do that. In regards to your suggestion, you can feel free to leave any particular comments about it in the FAC since I'm unsure what to change. Thank you again for your thoughtful comments, I'm glad that people believe this is FA worthy. :) Burklemore1 (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Just glancing over, there don't seem to be many obvious errors. Just a few things, though:

• One thing I noticed was that there's a section called Cited literature with only two books in it, but there's 35 other refs with ISBN numbers. Be consistent.

This is because there are multiple pages cited throughout the article.

Not throughout the article, in just the Reference section, for example ref no. 2 (Cranshaw, Whitney (2013)), and ref no. 115 (Wilson, Edward O. (1971))

• In the Taxonomy and phylogeny section, wikilink "Cryptocercus"; it is wikilinked the third paragraph but is first mentioned in the first paragraph

Already linked in first paragraph, but I have delinked "wood roach" if that is what you mean?

Yes. Also, when you first mention "Cryptocercus", put the common name "wood roach" in parentheses next to it

Done.

• In the Description section, wikilink "ocelli"

Linked.

• In the Description section, change " hind- and fore-wings" to "hind-and-fore-wings" or "hind-wings and fore-wings"

Wouldn't that be repetitive though?

I suppose it might, but "hind- and fore-wings" is not grammatically correct

Done.

• In the Predators section, in this sentence "while chimpanzees have developed tools to "fish" termites", wikilink "developed tools" to "Tool-use#Primates"

Done.

• For ref no. 105 (Lepage, M. G. (1981)), add the parameter "|language=Spanish"

Done.

• For ref no. 106 (Levieux, Jean (1966)), add the parameter "|language=French"

Done.

• In the Parasites and pathogens section, move ref no. 119 (Weiser, Jaroslav; et al. (2009)) and ref no. 120 (Chouvenc, T; et al. (2012)) to in front of the semi-colon

Done.

• Is ref no. 127 (Costa-Leonardo, Ana Maria; et al. (2013)) a book or a journal? I see both a doi and an ISBN

It's technically a journal article, but it only appears in the book (it's pretty much a chapter of its own).

• For ref no. 162 (Forbes, Henry O. (1878)) add template {{subscription required}}

Done.

• In the Nests section, change " (built above ground, but always connected to the ground via shelter tubes." to " (built above ground, but always connected to the ground via shelter tubes)."

Done, I was confused as to what I needed to change until I realised. Good catch!

• Be consistent in using either ISBN-10 or ISBN-13. Use this site for help converting

Done.

Should I just move these comments to the FAC page? Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 21:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Not at all, I'll address your comments shortly. I haven't nominated yet but if you have any more comments you can feel free to post there. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Alright then.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• One more thing: the In agriculture section is sandwiched between two pictures

Comments by Ugog Nizdast

• Images: the first thing that strikes me is the images placement and captions.
  • Let's see...WP:IMGLOC says the avoid such text sandwiches between images, that makes the text look cluttered. Try to place them near the relevant text their mentioned at and leave equal spacing.
  • Captions: WP:CAPFRAG says they don't need a period unless they're complete statements. Example, "The external appearance of the..." is definitely a complete statement.
• Etymology: "The infraorder name is...." best mention "isoptera", otherwise para starts off awkwardly.

Done.

• Taxo...:
  • "...it is likely that they originated at least in the Jurassic or Triassic", perhaps add an "earlier" here?

Done.

• • "..Cryptocercidae and Isoptera are united in the clade Xylophagodea.", a link here is missing for me to understand it...

No such article exists, but I've added a link anyway.

• • The statement about relationship to ants can be merged to the upper para (relationship to roaches) and the remaining para ("The oldest termite nest..." can be merged to the next para. Then it would flow better.

Done, added the relationship to ants to the second last paragraph, the discussion of the oldest nest has been added to the fossil section and the mention of eusocialty first evolving in termites is in the third paragraph.

• • IMGLOC says to place preferably place images so that the subject "faces" the text; this makes the amber fossil a right sided candidate, so swap its location with the external appearance one. Hope that chart won't come in the way, move that diagram next to it. This should hopefull remove the sandwich.

Moved them around, any better?

Yes, it's better but that chart comes in the way, so the sandwich still remains. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

If I'm right, the diagram you refer to can be found in Blattodea as a cladogram. Could we make use for it? Burklemore1 (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This one's better. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• • "Fossilised Nanotermes isaacae termite alate in Cambay amber" is this linkable? Anything else can be mentioned here which can be taken from the close-by text to make an attractive caption? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Issue automatically solved by removing image per suggestion.

• Any reason why "Termites are usually small,..." is in the Distribution and diversity, not Description section?

Moved the content discussion size to the description section.

• "The process of worker termites of the feeding of one colony member by another is known..." confusing, reword?

Reworded.

• ". Most so-called higher termites,..." so-called is a WP:WTW and this term gets only introduced in the last para of that section. Interesting, they are also classified by their diet, curious to know does that have any relationship/co-relation to their caste?

Removed the word "so-called", but for your other question I haven't really found much.

One more thing, Since higher termites are introduced only in the last para, why not move it below for it to flow better? Or somehow clarify what that means at its first mention. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• "...their mounds and rarely consume invertebrates." can you clarify? I'm assuming it's because eating them is infectious? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I have actually removed this statement about consuming invertebrates because they probably don't even eat them at all (since they're detritivores). This was a mistake I forgot to consider awhile ago Here's a suggestion, wherever you're finding a sandwich, why don't you use {{Multiple image|horizontal ? Or I could do a further inspection of each image and recommend additions/removals/captions? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want you can do any further inspections if it means to un-sandwich some areas. Cheers!

• For the images Taxonomy and evolution, I feel the nanotermes fossil can be removed, and the Mastotermes darwiniensis image be moved one step up. Nanotermes isn't really mentioned in the text, the rest two are more relevant; their captions should be wikilinked. That solves one sandwich.

Done, look any better?

• Description: The diagram can be moved up. The worker, soldier and queen can be made into a horizontal multiple template in the subsection.

Moved up, also replaced the images with a new one. Shows all castes.

• Life cycle: Wikilink caption in the nymph image. Maybe something from "Nymphs first moult into workers, and then some workers go through further moulting and become soldiers or alates; workers become alates only by moulting into alate nymphs" can be in the caption?

Done.

• Reproduction: add nuptial flight in the swarm image caption. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Done.

• It's written the numerous species seek refuge in termite mounds (" as beetles, caterpillars, flies and millipedes ...", " birds, lizards, snakes and scorpion...", you mean unoccupied ones right? else won't they be met with hostile resistance? and these "termitophiles", just how do them manage to do it, should both of this be mentioned? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Upon reading the source, some organisms have evolved with their hosts and are species specific. Some beetles and flies have developed glands that secrete substances. As a result, the substances are sought and licked by the nestmates. I shall incorporate this information I forgot about shortly.

Done.

That's I think all from me. Very nice work with this article and it was a pleasure to read. Good luck with its nomination. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Sorry for being a bit slow addressing your concerns, I have been working on getting some other articles to GA and hopefully I can get around to these shortly. Burklemore1 (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Vanamonde93

I'll take a look at this article; a lot of folks have been over it, so I may not have too much to say. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Every comment is appreciated. :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Apologies for the delay in getting started; RL keeping me busy. As always, you can incorporate or ignore any of my comments, because given that this is already a GA I doubt I'll find anything major. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• " termites divide labour among castes consisting of sterile male and female "workers" and "soldiers"." I would rephrase this for clarity, to something like "termites divide labour among multiple sterile casts; male "soldiers," and "workers" of both sexes" or something like that. It is my understanding that soldiers are only male; or am I wrong about this?
  • Males and females can both be workers and soldiers.
    • Ah, my bad. Was rather tired when I wrote that...
      • That's OK, I'm sure all of us have had these moments. :)
• This might be a matter of personal preference, but in the lead I would reorganize paragraphs 2 and 3; to me, information about life cycles make more sense alongside that about division of labor and sterile castes, and information about foraging makes sense alongside distribution.
• In the etymology section, I'd like to see a sentence about the modern usage of the term "white ants," as well as an indication that given their broad range, a number of non-english names also exist for the species.
• "Claims for an earlier time period for the emergence of termites stand on controversial footing." You can use plainer language here; Claims that termites emerged earlier have faced controversy" or something like that.

Done.

• I'm a little confused by the taxonomic classification figure at the bottom of the section. The infraorder contains a number of families, and each family has sometimes one, sometimes many subfamilies; but what are "parvorder" and "nanorder," and where do they fit into the classification? And why are there only one of each, if they are in fact smaller categories than "infraorder?"
• In the "distribution and diversity section," perhaps you could add why a soft cuticle prevents them from living in colder regions?
• In general, that particular section seems a little short, especially given the very detailed and thorough sections that precede and follow. I'm not sure the literature looks like, but surely there are review papers or some such describing termite distribution in detail?
• In the description section; I would suggest giving a brief explanation of terms such as "alates" and "lateral ocelli." These are terms that even many biologists would not know, and some of them are not linked.
• If the soldiers are of both sexes, as you've mentioned above, then I think you should have a sentence comparing their morphology (the morphology of male vs female soldiers, I mean). It is interesting if they are identical, and interesting if they are not.
• In the life cycle section, " In the social Hymenoptera, the workers" do you mean eusocial"? Or is it actually the broader "social"?

Well, it would be eusocial owing to how the sentence is structured. Changed

• This might be asking a lot, but a diagram showing the different stages/pathways of the life cycle would be really helpful. If you don't have the technical skills that's alright, I'm not sure I do either, but perhaps something created with powerpoint and saved as an image would work?
• Do the male and female that begin a new colony come from the same parent colony? If so, this will certainly have evolutionary consequences, and I wonder if any attention has been given to this. Of course, it might have been completely ignored in the literature, and if so you can ignore my question.
• I'm personally curious as to the reasons for the seasonal diet variation. Obviously, addressing this depends on the available information.
• Is the lower termite-higher termite distinction a phylogenetic one, or a functional one? Given the recent tendency to assume that a category is phylogenetic, clarification would be helpful.

Sorry if I seem inactive with your comments. This is unintentional, I just have a very tight schedule on here atm. I'm currently dealing with a FAC I have left comments for, somewhat 2nd opinion for a GA, discussing the Green-head ant article (i.e. raised concerns and name), the expansion of Red imported fire ant, Chronomyrmex and the creation of Baikuris. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries; I'm rather busy, too, as you've probably noticed by my absence. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Apologies for the delay; I should be able to finish this today or tomorrow at the latest.
• In the predation section, I'm a little unclear on what constitutes an ant "raid." In human terms a raid usually means a swift attack and retreat; is the analogy entirely appropriate?
• In the "competition" section, I wonder if you could clarify whether those behaviors are inter-species, inter-colony, or both; particularly in the case of the suicide cramming.
• In the first sentence of the "relationship with other organisms" section; I think you mean that termites usually prey upon this fungus, but this is not actually stated explicitly, and should be; unless I'm misreading this?
• Speaking off the top of my head, I believe some termite species use their saliva as the "mortar" in their mounds, which is what gives them their remarkable hardness; this is a fact worth mentioning, I think, unless it's a very uncommon trait. Also perhaps a little more information about mound composition, along the lines of what you have provided for the nests, would be good.
• I would move the paragraph about passive cooling in human buildings to the previous sub-section, where you discuss termite architecture; I feel it would flow better there. This is purely a matter of preference, however.

• I think that's about all I have. Fantastic job with this article! Although I have taken issue with your wording in places, the depth of research you have put into this is wonderful to behold; hats off! Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the wonderful comments, I will try and address your issues within this week or so, just trying to clear other things up so I don't feel burdened. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)