Talk:Aedes taeniorhynchus

Aedes taeniorhynchus was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 2, 2020, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Diptera Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Diptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of flies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DipteraWikipedia:WikiProject DipteraTemplate:WikiProject DipteraDiptera articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Insects Low‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hvmoolani (talk · contribs) 15 October 2019 I would like to thank the primary author of this article for adding so much research and information on this species. The formatting allows for an easy read of this article and the research focueses on the most relevent parts (rather than details of the experiments). I have gone through and changed all of the Aedes taeniorhynchus to Ae. taeniorhynchus after the initial use. I have also added many hyperlinks to body parts, ecological terms (e.g. salt marsh). While to the great depth of the research is great, it makes the article look wordy when images do not supplement the information. Since there are not any other images apart from the cover images in Wiki Media for the fly, I added some images based on other information in the article. If any scientists research this fly and have images, please add them to this article.

Rebeccaspell (talk · contribs) 17 October 2019 Very nice work on this article! It is very thorough and well-written. The edits I made were mostly very minor grammatical changes and adding a few spaces where they had been missing. I also adjusted some of the hyperlinks, which were to a fly species page that didn’t exist, so that they redirected to the fly’s genus, so that even though the reader can’t get to the page for that specific species, they can still get a sense (I did not change the name of the link though). I also adjusted a few “it”s to more specific nouns for clarity and added some transitional words to aid in the writing’s flow. My one suggestion would be to add a little more information to the lead section to make it more of an exciting introduction.

Joshkim_wustl (talk · contribs) 17 October 2019 Thank you to the author of this article for a thorough job. I slightly modified the lead paragraph to more closely resemble those of other Diptera wikipedia pages. You may also want to include some more interesting and relevant information about the fly beyond just distribution in the lead paragraph. The sentence about Aedes niger seems a little out of place in the genetics section, so consider moving it or deleting it altogether. In the mutualism section, it would be helpful to add more information (if such information can be found) about exactly how different species interact in a mutualistic way with A. taeniorhynchus. Good job including several recommended subsections in the article!

Hvmoolani (talk · contribs) 3 November 2019 I would like to thank the primary author of this article for looking at the comments on the talk page and making appropriate edits. Despite adding more information, the author maintains the strong flow of the article. In order to match the flow of the article I changed the introduction section from “The species is known to be a pest to humans and mechanisms for controlling Ae. taeniorhynchus survival have been developed. This mosquito is also commonly used in experimental studies and observational studies, with studies on conditions affecting development, physiological markers, and behavioral patterns. Behavioral patterns include periodic cycles for biting, flight, and swarming.” to “This mosquito is commonly used in experimental studies and observational studies, with studies on conditions affecting development, physiological markers, and behavioral patterns. Behavioral patterns include periodic cycles for biting, flight, and swarming. The species is known to be a pest to humans and mechanisms for controlling Ae. taeniorhynchus survival have been developed. The United States has spent and continues to spend millions of dollars to control and contain Ae. taeniorhynchus.” Many of the statements in the introduction did not have citations, so I also added the appropriate citations. I also hyperlinked about 30 terms like subgenus, migration, and other scientific terms that are not commonly known. I fixed small grammar and typos in the mutualism and noise detection sections. The author shoudl also consider adding some images based on other information in the article. If any scientists research this fly and have images, please add them to this article.

Christina.lindberg (talk · contribs) 5 November 2019 Great job making new additions to this already thorough article. The article has a great flow to it and maintains a scientific and unbiased tone throughout. I corrected a few spelling errors as well as edited some sentence structure and grammar throughout, but overall, the article is very well-written. I also added a section on Home range and added part of the distribution section to this section and added some more hyperlinks. In addition, I added the section "enemies" and added your sections on "Parasites" and "diseases" as subsections. A minor suggestion is to rearrange the description section so that there are separate descriptions for larva, pupa, and adult. You could also perhaps add sections on the microbiome of the fly and conservation of habitats of the fly, however, I understand that this may not be possible with the information available online. Excellent article!

Montana.sievert (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Lily, this article is really great! It's well written, contains tons of information, and covers nearly every section suggested by the Diperta project format. The only major sections missing are microbiome and conservation, so obviously if it were possible to add those that would be amazing! The bulk of my edits were small-editing word choice, rephrasing some things to be more straightforward or less repetitive, and I added some new Wiki links. I think something that would be great is if you could go through and add really brief explanations of terms that a general audience wouldn't know and lacks a Wikipedia page to link. For example you referred to a hypopgium which I doubt is a term a general audience would know. You also talked about an experiment that saw "split temperatures" affect life spans of this mosquito, but it isn't intuitive or obvious what that condition was. I also think some of your sections are really long and would benefit from division with sub-headers (or more sub-headers!), so a reader can more easily orient themselves and not get lost in a long section. Seriously though you've done an amazing job![reply]

Agandhi7 (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)This is an extremely thorough and impressive article. It seems like you've adequately addressed all the concerns brought up by peer reviewers, and have found and synthesized a lot of quality information on this species. As mentioned above, great job covering nearly all the recommended sections for a Project Diptera article![reply]

Untitled

I made a few small changes to the article. Since most of the description section was related to differentiating this species from others, I added a little 'Similar Species' subheading in that section. In addition to this and grammatical changes, the only other edit I made was to move the reference to this species parasitizing albatrosses to the food resources section. With the previous edit creating an enemies section, this sentence no longer belonged in the section. The only recommendations I would make would be to break up the article, if possible, by incorporating some images or editing to make more concise explanations. This is such an amazing article though!

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aedes taeniorhynchus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 21:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77

In Larval in-stars, I don't get why you have the sub-subheadings. You don't really need them. If you're listening to some WikiProject guidelines, don't. Look at GA or FA articles and see what they do if you really need guidance, but just do what's best for the article User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed these sub-subheadings. XuLily (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so I've shuffled the text around as best as I could just skimming all the info, check if it flows well, rearrange the images to prevent cluttering, see if some information better belongs in a different subsection User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thank you! I will plan to get to the last bullet point over the weekend. XuLily (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence of the first par of the lead is too sciencey, you can just say something like "Like other mosquitos, females generally, though with exceptions, have to consume a blood meal before laying eggs." User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded this sentence, combining the previous text and the quote you suggested. Could you please take a look and let me know what you think? XuLily (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"used in experimental studies and observational studies" I don't think there's any other kind of study, and the fact that is studied is not something you actually have to clarify User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this redundancy. I initially included this sentence (lead paragraph 2, sentence 1) to lead into the next sentence, which focuses on the organism's periodic cycles. Do you think it would be better if I combined these sentences to remove any introduction about the mosquito being studied? e.g. "From studies on this mosquito of development, physiology, and behavioral patterns, this species is noted for developing in periodic cycles, with high sensitivity to light and flight patterns that result in specific wingbeat frequencies that allow for both species detection and sex distinction." XuLily (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"that result in specific frequencies" frequencies of what? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I specified that this refers to wingbeat frequencies. XuLily (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms of the species go in the taxobox, not in the lead. You add the parameter |synonyms = and then make a bulleted list, and for the references, you put |synonyms_ref = User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the synonyms from the lead and added them with references to the taxobox. XuLily (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@XuLily: you there? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies! - I've had a busy week but can start going through your feedback right now. Thanks for the bump. XuLily (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No rush, just wondering if you found the page User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomic synonyms should be listed in the taxobox instead of the lead. Add the parameters |synonyms= and make a bulleted list, and then add |synonyms_ref=

Finished 2 bullet points above. XuLily (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Ae. taeniorhynchus is attributed to taxon author Wiedemann, with naming dated to 1821. Alternate namings for the species include Culex taeniorhynchus (Wiedemann, 1821) and Ochlerotatus taeniorhynchus (Wiedemann, 1821). As a result, the species falls within the Ochlerotatus subgenus" this is very odd wording. Also, I'm sure Wiedemann has a first name and probably an article you could link to. Generally we do "[Nationality] [credentials] [first name] Wiedemann described Ae. (Ochlerotatus) taeniorhynchus in 1821." Also, check out the taxonomy sections of GA/FA diptera articles to see what else they detail. Add close relatives or other members of the subgenus Ochlerotatus (unless there's more than 10). Why did he assign it to the genus and subgenus he did?

[In Progress] I reworded the opening sentence for the Taxonomy section following your format. I will plan to review some other taxonomy sections and add information about relatives / genus/subgenus assignment and will update this bullet point when done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XuLily (talk • contribs) 19:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the instar, pupa, adult images in life cycle, use {{multiple image}} User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I rearranged these images with multiple images - thanks! Do you think the adult female picture should also go with this multiple images group of pictures? I moved it to a different section for now since I thought it was a little repetiive to have the adult male and adult female together. Wondering what your thoughts are on this? XuLily (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, add the parameter |direction=vertical User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need "manifesting as low heterozygosity and low allelic richness"? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink genetic diversity User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence of Taxonomy is written weirdly, should be "In 1821, German entomologist Christian Rudolph Wilhelm Wiedemann gave the insect the species name taeniorhynchus, but unsure if it should be placed in the genus Aedes, Culex, or Ochlerotatus." Then you need to add future authors who included it in Aedes and why they did, or maybe Wiedemann came back some time later and concluded it belonged to Aedes User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Aedes niger, also known as Aedes portoricensis, is a subspecies of Ae. taeniorhynchus" don't really understand, if it's a subspecies, shouldn't the name be A. t. niger, not just A. niger? Check the source if you read it right. Also, who first identified the subspecies? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should say where Wiedemann got his specimens from if such info is given User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 3rd paragraph of Taxonomy is much longer and complicated than it needs to be. You can just say "Microsatellite DNA analysis shows that Ae. taeniorhynchus on the Galapagos Islands have genetic differences with the mainland populations, with minimal (interbreeding/gene flow) occurring only during rainy periods. Highland mosquitos [in the x mountains] have low genetic diversity, likely due to egg dormancy during dry spells" And I don't really get how egg dormancy is related to genetic diversity User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have gone inactive. I'll give 5 more days to respond before failing for inactivity User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): XuLily. Peer reviewers: Hvmoolani, Rebeccaspell, Joshkim wustl.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]