Talk:Caddisfly/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sabine's Sunbird (talk · contribs) 06:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I note that books don't have page ranges. This doesn't bother me (scientifically it passes muster for verifiability) but this may be an issue if you choose to go to FAC "Wiggins" doesn't seem to have page numbers, but it has numbered sections, and these are mentioned in the citations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Spotcheck fine, only content mirrors
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	As noted before could use brief mention of global distribution. Otherwise fine. Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	*In the UK it is found in and around the county of Worcestershire in oakwoods. Considering the article doesn't describe the global distribution of the order, the focus of a single species in one nation seems to suggest that this criteria needs a little work. I assume it's cosmopolitan, would be good to state that, as well as noting any important patterns, if any exist. Moved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] I still think that getting down to county level for one species is a touch narrow, but I'll pass here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:GlossosomatidLarvae.jpg - is listed as PD because Federal work but (broken) link goes to California state government - does federal PD status apply to state work? Please confirm. Removed image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] File:Silver Sedge, from Trout fly-fishing in America (6309074584).jpg this is (clearly) PD; why does it also have a CC tag? Removed the CC tag. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] Otherwise images are tagged correctly as best I can tell.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	File:Daternomina male tagged.png it's a shame this isn't used inline in morphology section with meaningful captions to go with in-image numbering Otherwise this passes. I think the larvae video might sit well in the ecology section, but this is a personal thing. The larva video is now in Ecology. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	Great stuff. Done

Other things

Fossil caddisflies have been found in rocks dating back to the Triassic;[3] the group survived the Permian–Triassic extinction event about 252 million years ago. It's not clear what the second part of this sentence adds. Obviously its ancestors did survive that event, but since it's far from clear that the group existed before then you can't really say the group did.

Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The affinities of the third suborder, Spicipalpia, I think this group needs to be mentioned in the lead, even if they aren't as numerous, because it was a surprise to suddenly realise there were three suborders.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The adult stage of a caddisfly may only survive for a few weeks; many species do not feed as adults and die soon after breeding. It's noted later that some adults eat nectar - but this info would be better in ecology than development

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally biased but caddis larvae are important for some birds too, like dippers or some high river ducks. (You don't have to action this but I'm just saying).

I'm sure you are right, and amphibians too, but I found it difficult to find a suitable source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Development might be better titled Development and morphology

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sclerotinised linked in development - probably more useful the first time the term turns up in evolution. Also, The heads are heavily sclerotinised slightly contradicts that first section, which suggests some families arent sclerotinised much

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't the taxonomic list have the three suborders?

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few things to address but then it's good to go. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking on the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave @Chiswick Chap: to deal with the image issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I believe. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And pass. Good stuff. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And from me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]