Talk:Damselfly/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shyamal (talk · contribs) 10:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I have taken up this article. Give me some time to read and comment. Shyamal (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

A general first reading

Overall reads well but some citations need to be replaced with more reliable alternatives. Some comments and questions that came up on the first reading -

• Today they are found on every continent except Antarctica - with the added condition of freshwater being nearby?
• Their presence on a body of freshwater - may give impression that larvae can breed in salt water

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe better to have the aquatic nymph information first.

I can't see where else to slot in the information about being predatory. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• "...so it is not known if their larvae were aquatic at that time" - is there a reference for this doubt?

The fact is mentioned in the source cited for the following sentence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

On further research I see that there is considerable research (and rationale for the doubt) on the topic - but I think something like Grimaldi & Engel would be a reliable source for such information (unlike UCMP's site) - here

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• "...a network of veins into which haemolymph flows" - does the haemolyph flow in the wing veins of adults?

The presence of haemolymph in the wing veins gives the wings rigidity. See the "Life cycle" section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually I think rigidity is produced by the hollowness and the sclerotization at the time of moulting into the adult. However there is something about circulation in Arnold, J.W. (1964) Blood circulation in insect wings. Mem. Ent. Soc. Canada. 38. (cited here)

I have rephrased this bit and added an extra reference. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• "...whereas dragonflies breathe through the rectum" - well-known but still needs a citation

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• "... have a range of suitable microhabitats and suitable water bodies for breeding" - water is also part of the microhabitat?

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• "Dragonflies are more affected by pollution than are damselflies and the presence of dragonflies and damselflies indicates that the ecosystem is of good quality" - not sure if "and" is the right conjunction here as it is heard to see the relationship of the two points.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• The term mate-guarding may be worth introducing and a link to sperm competition might help some readers.

Done both. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• The labial mask could have a bit more coverage.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Was wondering about the courtship of a cascade species that flies through falling water in Attenborough's Life in the Undergrowth - unable to find the id of that species though.

Done. Thaumatoneura inopinata, It's in Disc 1: Taking to the Air (2005) at 15:00. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Great! Shyamal (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

A reliable source on this species and its breeding is the series by Calvert - here are two relevant parts

• I could not find coverage on forest species, the use of phytotelmata, bromeliads etc. like these for example

Done, thank you for the ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/creatures/misc/odonata/odonata.htm and http://www.mndragonfly.org/biology.html are good as external links - not so great as sources I suspect.

I have replaced these with better sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Putting in the largest and smallest species (extant / extinct) would keep away a certain kinds of passing editors who might mess up the article later.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Lead - "pair often remain together "in cop" while laying eggs " - I suppose "in cop" is supposed to mean in copula but this is misleading considering that clasping is mate-guarding rather than copulation while also using indirect sperm transfer.

Replaced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• The ^** on some families is not explained in the legend.

Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

More

• The extent of sexual dimorphism in some species might be worth covering. Also female-limited polymorphism - doi:10.1006/anbe.2003.2279

Done, and see next item. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think some coverage of the families might be needed to show the range of forms - the fact that some groups (Calopterygidae) have wings that are brightly coloured could be illustrated. - see for instance File:Neurobasis_chinensis-_Male.jpg

Done, mentioned families, desc, image of C. splendens male/female, ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• The first paragraph in the behaviour section is in the wrong tense/mood plus it seems to be based on a single species instead of providing an abstraction behavioural patterns across the group. Territoriality for instance is not mentioned elsewhere.

This has been rewritten and generalised with fresh examples and refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• I had always assumed that roosting aggregation in some species were well-known - for instance see my photo of Vestalis gracilis - but I am not able to find a good synthesis of this behaviour and taxonomic relations - but there are several species specific sources on the topic.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Good secondary sources to be utilized in several places are

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.en.25.010180.001201 --- used, thanks

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/11250009309355839 --- used, thanks

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Suhling/publication /228369286_Voltinism_of_Odonata_a_review/links/0912f50c85f1a06884000000.pdf --- used, thanks

• This bit on possible ovo-viviparity seems amazing enough to merit inclusion - http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13887890.2014.959076

Done, thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think a second cladogram may be needed to show the top level fossil relationships within the odonatan groups including extinct groups like Latibasaliidae, Austroperilestidae, Priscalestidae, Dysagrionidae, Protozygoptera etc. - may need to examine if this is up to date (probably not)

This may be beyond the scope of the article at GA, and the relationships are not easy to untangle from the various research papers; the older cladograms including the one at TOL seem to be considered doubtful by later authors, and work seems to be actively ongoing. I think we should probably leave this alone for the moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Nearly there

Thanks for all the work done. I have added a few refs and made a few additions, feel free to edit them. The only bit that bugs me is a statement - "They are less dependent than dragonflies on warmth and can be observed hunting during cold spells." - this is sourced from the UCMP site but that place does not cite reliable references for this fact. I have looked up a couple of encyclopedias and standard entomology texts and cannot see much support for this. I see some notes on what are called cold stenothermal odonates which prefer cold waters (as nymphs) but even there I cannot find a suitable source for a blanket statement.

Deleted the statement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with the other statement drawn from the UCMP site - "The most species-rich environments have a range of suitable microhabitats, providing suitable water bodies for breeding " which seems fairly acceptable as a hypothesis/possibility. Shyamal (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: