Talk:Biological pest control/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 13:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. The queue seems to be experiencing a few hiccups at the moment! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'll review this over the next few days. Vanamonde (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   All issues fixed

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   All issues fixed

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's tool flags a quote: no other issues that I can find.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No issues

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images appropriately licensed

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Caption issues addressed

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All my concerns have been addressed, I'll pass this shortly.

Specific comments

History

• "later defined by P. DeBach and K. S. Hagen" mentioning what this definition was would be helpful, I think.

Not so much a one-liner as DeBach's life's work with many papers (new ref) and the title of the cited book.

• " imported cabbage white butterfly" I've always been under the impression that pest species which humans accidentally transported across geographic barriers were referred to as invasives or exotics; am I wrong about this? In any case, I think the accidental/otherwise nature of this should be clarified.

Invasive it is.

• "and severity of its outbreaks" should it be "and severity of its population outbreaks"?

It seems to read correctly, the biological meaning of outbreak coinciding with the popular sense of a large increase in (negative) effect, like a disease outbreak. I don't think the word "population" would really help here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay.

• The history section is very thoroughly written. The examples you've provided, though, apart from the Chinese one, are all from the West. I wonder if there are any other examples; not necessarily from the last 100 years; of biological control from other regions?

Quite a challenge! As you say, the Chinese one certainly isn't Western. I've moved the prickly pear story (Australia) into History, and added details and dates. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Types

• "keep pace with the spatial and temporal disruption of the habitat." I'm not certain what is meant here. Do you mean the challenges of a new habitat?

Changes in space and time.

But why do these become relevant only in a new habitat?

• Not a huge fan of the phrase "and relies on understanding of the situation." because I find it difficult to think of situations where understanding is irrelevant. Could we be more specific, or just remove that?

Depends on the precise details of the interactions of the pest and the control agent.

Okay, that would be better.

Done.

• In the examples given in the augmentation section, I think it might be helpful to reiterate once that the releases are of critters already in those particular systems; otherwise, a lay reader might lose the difference between that and importation.

Done.

• link or explain "entomopathogenic"

Done.

• "led to an economic advantage of 7.5%" Not certain what this means precisely, and not certain that it's necessary, because the rest of the article is about the biology rather than the economics, and you've covered that with yield and pesticide.

Removed.

• The second paragraphs of "Conservation" talks about "beneficial insects" a lot, but does not make it clear precisely what these insects do (an example might be good) or, more importantly, why these habitat manipulations favor "good" insects, but not "bad" ones.

Done. They don't favour one type of insect, but they do encourage more of a balance of species so a "bad" one isn't the only one in town.

Agents

• The "predators" subsection lists a lot of examples, but I'm wondering if you could include a more generic statement in the opening paragraph to structure it; something like "taxa used in biological control are generally insectivorous species" or something to that effect. Else we're going from "predators" (and let's be honest, when most folks hear that word, they think "big cat") to aphids and the like.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• "4-1000million female parasitoids per week." I think there's a typo (or is it just a missing space?) in here; but also those numbers seem pretty high, so I'm wondering if you could give numbers for the other type of production, too, which is supposed to be even faster.

Removed, that error had been in the article for years. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Is there any difference in the method of production that could be mentioned here?

I added a little more information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• I seem to remember that there was an interesting aftermath to the rabbit situation; didn't the virus evolve to be less deadly? Though this might be something to mention with side effects.

Added information on rabbits becoming immune. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Other methods

• Wondering why the "indirect control" section is not a part of "competition" above.

Done, and put the Combined use section just after it too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Images

• Most images and captions are fine. The first two images, though, I think the caption could use more detail: "Syrphus hoverfly larva (above) are used as biological controls for aphids (aphid larva below)" (or something like that: if you can work in "feeding", all the better. Same suggestion for the next image.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources

• Reference 6 needs a page number

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• There's a couple of primary sources that I think are not fantastic, but probably okay given the nature of the information. I trust that there isn't any controversy over the matters for which the Australian government is used as a source?

Don't think so; these are quiet technical official sources, detached from primary research. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Reference 16 needs more detail

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Reference 28 needs a page number

New source found. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Reference 32 needs a page number

Link goes direct to correct page but I can't find what the page number is. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be 8–12 in digital currency, if that has any value. I noted it so in article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Reference 41 needs a page number

New source found. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Reference 51 is a bare url (which leads to a journal article which is fine as a source; just needs cleanup)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Reference 55 needs a page number

Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Who is gambusia.net managed by? Is it a reliable source? (Ref 76)

Yes, Peter Unmack is or was a scientist at the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center, and the article cites 32 journal papers or monographs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Same question as above about "tropical forages" (ref 62}

Yes, it's "a collaborative effort between CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries (Qld), Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) and the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)." Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Some broken syntax in ref 65

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Reference 77 needs a page number

Replaced text and ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• There's several instances where you use "parasitoid" for a specific taxon rather than a category; in those instances, I'd say it would be more helpful to say "parasitoid wasp" or whatever.

Done.

• I think the comment about internationalizing the article applies in general, too. I completely understand that we are limited by our source material, which, given the state of current science, is going to be heavily tilted toward the global north; but it's something to keep in mind, so that if examples from the tropics/third world countries come up, they can be included, especially if this article is to go beyond GA.

Let's not worry about going further for now (it'd be a complex topic to do that with). If I see balancing examples I'll add them.

Okay; just keep an eye out.

• Also, I feel that this article needs some information of what situations biological control is used in. Your examples are largely agricultural, which makes sense; but my understanding is that they have also been used to eradicate other pests; is that correct? In any case, I'm thinking a paragraph or so might be helpful. One somewhat bold idea I had was to integrate the "side-effects", "grower education" (which is a slightly odd stand-alone, in any case) and the stuff suggested above into a "uses and obstacles" section with two subsections about side-effects and education.

Encarsia has been mainly horticultural, in greenhouses as the article says; the prickly pear problem was basically one of invasion of land; others are mainly about pests of agricultural crops. Amenable to changes, do you want to attempt the change you suggest and I can tweak it if need be?

If we wanted to expand the topic beyongd the agricultural field, there is the cal in the warehouse to keep rodents under control, the peregrine on the urban building to keep pigeons away from ledges, and probably more, but I think they are beyond the scope of the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I've redone the section levels, but I don't know the source material enough to write a summary paragraph. I don't think anything complicated is necessary: something along the lines of "biological pest control is frequently used in agriculture, including against insect herbivores, mites, and fungal infections (or something like that). It is also occasionally used in land management, such as in (insert example) and in horticulture (example). Obstacles to its use include possible side effects, and a lack of knowledge among growers." Does this seem plausible? It would be inserted at the top of the "obstacles" section, which would be retitled. Vanamonde (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

How's that? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Content-wise, that's fine. Just wondering if "disadvantages" is an appropriate title when the section includes information about a lack of knowledge among farmers, which is certainly not a disadvantage. How about "difficulties?" Vanamonde (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The trouble with being co-nominee for an article nominated for GA is that one is unaware when a review is taken up. I know now ! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted! One of Wikipedia's many creaky mechanisms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• That's everything from me; thanks for the prompt responses, and for a well-written piece on a complex topic. Vanamonde (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for a thoughtful review as always. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks Vanamonde. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)