Talk:Parasitoid wasp/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 03:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Preparation of this review could take a day or two. Could you mention how you were drawn to do this article in particular, and I notice that you appear to have two other topically related articles in the queue as well. Any reasons for connecting these articles in your approach? JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. I'm interested in evolutionary biology including relationships between species, and have brought numerous articles on camouflage and mimicry to GA, with related topics like anti-predator adaptation and cleaning symbiosis. Also wasp and many other insect groups. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Begin assessment:

0 Lede

Lede section first paragraph appears a little long and might be split into two paragraphs.

Done.

The very first sentence might read better if you include explicitly the word include/exclude with your reference to wood wasps.

Tweaked wording.

The last sentence in your first paragraph here makes reference to mutualism and should mention if mutualism makes this a different form of parasitism from the normative type.

There isn't really anything to say here other than what is said, namely that the viruses help.

Paragraph break at "Parasitoid wasps species differ..." might be useful.

Done already.

As a suggestion, is there a reason why your very first sentence does not read something like "Parasitoid wasps are wasps which eventually kill their hosts."

I see what you're trying to do, but we're in danger of saying with Moliere that opium makes you sleepy due to its dormitive faculty, i.e. that parasitoid wasps are wasps that are parasitoidal (and we'd be in danger of missing out the wood wasps if we did that). We need somehow to explain the enormous taxonomic range along with the parasitic behaviour; I'm not sure that rearranging it will make this better.

Its not quite the same as saying "They were drinking and therefor they got drunk". For the lede, my preference is that you follow MOS and present this as 4 paragraphs. Also, the parenthetical material looks backwards, i.e., the lede might read better if you present your parenthetical material without parenthesis first to replace the keywords they are defining. Then at the end of the same paragraph you can then define the keywords much more concisely and without the need for awkward parenthesis. Many prefer to see the lede without parenthesis. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Erm, the paragraphing was your suggestion; we're now back to 4 paras, and I've suppressed the parentheses or used them for the Latin names. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Lede is currently at MOS 4 paragraphs. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

That's what I said, I just merged them back to reverse your splitting.

1 Evolution and taxonomy

Why is you evolutionary tree covering so many non-parasitic insects if your article is only on parasitoid wasps? You have just told your readers that you are excluding Orussoidea but you include them as your very first entry in your evolutionary tree (cladistics). The tree should be trimmed since you appear to only cover Ichneumidae, Braconidae and Chalcidoidea from your very large chart. Does the article really need to remind readers that bees are also genetically related at some distance.

The Orussoidea or 'parasitoid wood wasps' are included here; the section states that they are the only ones not part of the Apocrita clade. I've clarified the wording, which I hope works better now. On the breadth of the tree, the article applies to all the families of parasitoid wasps, whose bluelinks can be followed for more detail; and the examples and illustrations are taken from several families, including also Eumeninae, Aphidiidae, Pompilidae, Pteromalidae, but most of what is said applies to all the families. I don't apologise for showing where the ants and bees fit in: the tree shows that parasitoid wasps are extremely diverse, and that the familiar non-parasitic ants, bees, and wasps are rather the exceptions. Actually we can hardly help drawing them in, as they're part of the structure of the tree. I've added italics which makes it clearer that they are exceptions to the coverage, and indicated the families of the wasps shown in the photographs.

That's not what I meant. Its clear that you did a nice effort on the evolutionary tree, but, its placement is awkward where it is in this article. For example, in dynasty charts throughout Wikipedia, they may be highly relevant though they are placed at the end of articles in order not to be distractions. Currently, your nice chart distracts from the section text which is where you make your main points. Possibly consider moving the tree to the end of the article as a stand alone section at the end of the article before the bibliography. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I've reluctantly moved it down so it's the last bit about the wasps' biology; the rest is about humans.

That's an improvement. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

1.1 Evolution

See comments above.

1.2 Taxonomy

Appears adequate for now.

Noted.

2 Parasitoidy

Your chart here is elegant though I might suggest separating into the two main subjects: Endoparasitic and Ectoparsitic. The only relation between the two charts is that they lead to dead hosts, otherwise they ought to be separate charts with separate labels (titles).

Thank you; I'd say that having them as one diagram is both economical of (very limited) space, and advantageous in directly comparing endo- with ecto-.

If you must have it as one chart then the middle graphic should eliminate the skewed and hollow "C" shape in the middle which is doing nothing useful. Simple re-label the remaining yellow sphere as "New adult parasitoid emerging from dead host." JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I really don't agree. The diagram needs to show that the host is consumed and left empty.

There is a significant gap between your contemplation of wanting to depict a consumed host and a hollow "C" shape in the middle of your diagram. Please note that you using one single diagram to simultaneously show separate and by definition mutually exclusionary processes in the same diagram. Another thought would be to add some sort of lite piping graphics vertically through the middle of the diagram if you insist on making this a single diagram. After hearing your reservations, I still suggest that the hollow "C" shape in the middle is not really helping you illustrate your main point. See my first comment above on changing the wording in the middle portion. And the lite graphic piping down the vertical middle in the background would help if you know how to do this. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the image of the dead host for you.

My screen is still showing the dead host as a hollow "C" shape in the middle. I would like to start bringing this assessment to something resembling a close. If you are insisting on keeping the hollow "C" shape in the middle here then can I ask you to change the caption to: "The two strategies found among parasitoidal wasps: Ectoparasites are usually idiobiont, endoparasites koinobiont." It would be interesting to hear if this subject matter is vocational for you or if it is as a hobbyist that you are drawn to this field; its completely optional at Wikipedia if you don't want to say if this field is a vocational interest or otherwise. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The diagram and the article have already been updated; you can either refresh your screen by pressing the little circle arrow (your mileage may vary) in your browser, or restart your browser, or force a reload of the page with a null edit. I was trained in biology and now pursue it for pleasure.

The two strategies found among parasitoidal wasps: Ectoparasites are usually idiobiont, endoparasites koinobiont.

This is the diagram as it is printing on my screen after 2 reloads, with the hollow "C" shape still there. I have substituted the caption which I suggested adds clarity for readers. Is this is updated form you refer to above? JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Look again. It's not there. Just a refresh issue (apparently between various Commons servers with a delay in updating themselves).

It is now a full day and the odd crescent shape labeled with the words "Dead host" appears as a hollow "C" in the middle of your diagram both here and in your article. As you wish to refuse to remove it, I am asking that you alter the caption to your diagram in the article to match the caption I have placed here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I promise I have removed it, please go to the image on Commons and you will see it was done yesterday at 16:41. However, frankly, it's not a GAN issue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Your last edit in the article for it was Jan 12. Please update the caption to the diagram as I have placed it in the diagram here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Not relevant, I updated the image on Commons which automatically updates the image in the article (no change to article history). I tell you what, to stop faffing about I'll update the caption for now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It is clear to me that you have put in a comprehensive effort here and if you can get the correct graphics to load for this graph both here on in the article then I am prepared to finish the assessment. Possibly you can do this by listing this issue on the technical village pump here on Wikipedia or contacting one of the administrators at commons. This is not 'faffing', its just that I have never seen it take more than 24 hours to clear the caches in order to reload new graphics from commons. Your new graph on commons is very clearly the correct one and just get someone to get it to load properly in the article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I've put in a bitmap version of the (new) image. This lacks the scalability of the vector version but at least you'll see it in place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

2.1 Hosts

Could you perhaps add roman numerals to distinguish the two separate classes which you introduce as (i) those that paralyze the host and (ii) those that protect the egg. These are 2 very different mechanisms and should be separated.

I don't think that's relevant in this section.

I think you will see much clearer rendering in your text narrative if you include these roman numerals here and in the other places I suggested it, rather than enjambment of your thoughts into terse sentences. Try it once for one of the places where I suggested you try it to see if it looks ok. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It certainly wouldn't be appropriate in the hosts section, I'll see if I can fit some in elsewhere.

I'll check the other sections. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I added them to Polydnavirus below.

2.2 Life cycle

Could you describe in this section the process of re-hosting of victims by the next generation in this multi-generational life-cycle which might be interesting for readers.

That's described above, how the females go and oviposit on their hosts, at the top of Parasitoidy.

Sounds ok. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

2.3 Polydnavirus

It might help to separate the two major processes which you identify again with roman numbers: "(i) by weakening the host's immune system and (ii) by altering the host's cells". They should be separated as distinct. If you are saying it is part of the wasp's genome then you are saying that it is reproduced to off-spring as well?

Not sure that numbering would add much, given that it already says "and". Yes, in the genome means it's inherited: I've now said so in the section.

When I tried it in Show preview mode it looked better with the roman numbers. Try it once. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I've done this, extremely reluctantly: it's clutter.

It looks more clear now and no clutter at all. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

3 Host defences

Your images should not both be at the same place here but try to stagger them between paragraphs wince they are breaking up your paragraph print outs on small screens.

There is only one image in the section.

You seem to have already shifted the images. It works on small screens now. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

In your chart on mutualism could you state more of what mechanism is used for the suppression? Does it destroy antigens or temporarily inactivate them, etc.

Roossinck (ref 21) states "Most of the viral genes reside in the nuclear genome of the wasp, while the virions package wasp genes for delivery into the caterpillar where the wasp deposits its eggs. These wasp genes suppress the immune response of the caterpillar and prevent encapsulation of the egg by the caterpillar." Fleming et al (ref 19) state "Several pronounced immunological, physiological, and developmental changes occur in parasitized hosts concomitant with viral gene expression and appear to be essential for normal endoparasitic development of the wasp in the host." I'm not sure that tells us any more about how that works, however, or anything we could add to the chart.

My suggestion is to amend our caption slightly: "..suppression by releasing hemocytes (or antigens) into...". JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, you've misread that. I've changed the caption to read "by the host's hemocytes". Adding antigens would be original research.

My interest is in the mechanism of suppression; does it create a quasi-embryo which cannot be penetrated or is there an active antagonist which suppresses the efficacy of host defenses. Your caption is grammatical, is it worth adding anything on the mechanism of suppression either in the text or the caption. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

As I've already indicated with quotes, the sources don't tell us.

In your first paragraph here could you clarify "both can attract parasitoids". Do the parasitoids act as predators seeking hosts or do they 'ambush' hosts by infesting plants which victim hosts frequent?

Many families of parasitoid wasps are definitely hunters, as for example the Pompilidae which actively search for spiders. While hunting they look out for signs of their prey such as frass and damage to plants. I've edited the text to this effect.

Good to add this. The first paragraph is a bit long here and might be divided into two paragraphs. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at it; the paragraph is on a single clearly-defined topic, and at under 200 words isn't unreasonably long. It's best left as it is.

Ok. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

At the end of the paragraph you mention the use of ethanol as prophylactic against hosting: is this a common mechanism seen across different species?

The sources only mention Drosophila doing this; it seems to be unusual.

It should be stated as unusual in the section and not applicable to wasps if that I the case. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

That would be editorialising.

The genome maps of drosophila and wasps are not identical. Also, is there any information of which of the wasps have had full genome maps done and which ones have not. There is nothing in the article on genome mapping of wasps which might be seen as being overlooked by some readers. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Drosophila and caterpillars are instances of the hosts (prey, more or less) of the wasps, so the comparison is not relevant. The genomes of the wasps have of course been sampled to get the cladogram, as is cited already.

4 Biological pest control

Could you number the 3 types you list here in your first paragraph with roman numerals: (i) ichneumonid wasps, (ii) braconid wasps, (iii) chalcid wasps. Are there others?

That would imply a limitation to those families, but scientists looking for control agents aren't limited to those three: it's just that the big, diverse families are the likeliest places to find useful parasitoids, as indicated by the words "the most important groups are".

Could you try the wording as "among the most important groups are...". JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

No, these three very large families *are* the most important groups. Other minor groups are also possible.

5 In culture

You currently have 2 section heading here and you only need one. If you have something on either the normality and abnormality of parasitism in nature life-cycles it might be nice to add it here.

Removed.

5.1 Charles Darwin

Redundant section titles. You only need one section title here. See above on "In culture".

Done.

That should get things started and let me know if I can clarify any of my comments above. It would be nice if you could mention your target audience here: are you writing it as a 1st year grad school article or a 1st year undergrad article. I ask this since both target audiences are important and I would like to adjust any of my additional comments to the level of audience for whom you are intending this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The simpler the better; I'm not convinced my views are at all important here, it's all one encyclopedia, and the readership is inevitably general; though you must be right to some extent that more specialised articles have a more refined readership. I hope that it will be accessible to any undergraduate, and indeed to anyone interested in natural history, degree or no. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The simpler the better is a nice saying. Give these comments above a try and lets see how the article looks. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Assessment outcome

The editor for this article has put in a good deal of time into the graphics and writing of this article which shows a useful amount of technical detail. The only differences between the writer and the reviewer has been on whether a less technically worded first sentence in the lede would serve readers better. At this moment, the editor prefers the more technical version as it now appears. The other point left for now is the best placement of the evolutionary tree for these wasps, which now appears midway into the article, which I have suggested to be better placed at the bottom of the article next to the bibliography separated from the text description currently describing the evolutionary tree diagram. The editor has preferred to keep the text and diagram together. Otherwise, the article checks all the boxes, has some nicely done graphics, and passes assessment. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)