Talk:Copidosoma floridanum/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 19:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While this does seem to be a well-researched and well-written article, there is key information missing; the article cannot be promoted to good article status until while these problems remain.

There is no description section, outlining the morphology of the species. To someone who doesn't already know about chalcid wasps, this article gives no indication of what the animals look like.
Similarly, we're missing a taxonomy section. This would outline who originally described the species and when, what they called it, what the name means, any changes in name, any important synonyms, any knowledge we have of its intrageneric placement and any common names.
Although you mention in passing that it's a cosmopolitan species, there's no information about its distribution and habitat in the main body of the article. This really needs its own section.
If there's something worth saying about any commercial/cultural/scientific/conservational importance, which you imply in the lead there may be, this should really have its own section at the bottom of the article.
Following on from what I've said, the lead section should summarise what is written in the rest of the article- it should not contain any information not already elsewhere in the article. As such, it typically does not need citations, unless any information is particularly controversial.
You talk a lot about certain interesting behaviours, but you don't cover some of the basics. Does the species live in a colony? Where do they nest? What's the structure of the colony? In what way are they parasitic? On what species do they parasitize?
When you say "spite", do you mean Hamiltonian spite? The article you link to doesn't seem to be related.
Check the dates on your sources. We need at least the years, when these are known!

Once the article has been expanded with these more pedestrian details about the species, it may well be ready for good article status. Right now, though, I'm going to close the review. You're welcome to reply here or contact me on my talk page if I can be of any help of if you need any clarification. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To J. Milburn: Thank you very much for taking the time to review this article for GA Nomination. I will make sure to continue expand and revise content on C. floridanum. Thank you again for your assistance and input. --Gschalet (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]