Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods/Article Classification

i think your ariticle is quite good, but you haven't said where the word 'cockroach' comes from.because i have to do my homework about where it is from. (edit comment)

This article is rated start (probably should be stub) because it has nothing to say on how significant shrimp are commercially, where the fisheries are, what the trade is, the proportion farmed verses captured wild, the sustainability issues, how shrimp are captured, the incidental damage done by conventional capture methods, and so on ad nauseum. Instead we are just offered what appears to be a, oops, I was going to say a blinkered account from some complacent epicurean smelling his armpits, but that wouldn't be kind would it? --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of that is addressed in the Shrimp farm and Shrimp fishery articles. The information doesn't need to be duplicated. Gh5046 (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC) (edit comment)

スズメバチ (suzumebachi) just means "wasp" or "hornet". The Japanese word for giant hornet is オオスズメバチ (oo-suzumebachi), literally meaning "big sparrow bee". Here's a link to the Japanese wikipedia article on suzumebachi. --125.172.70.98 (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC) (edit comment)

Goldfinger820 01:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• needs short introduction
• predatory techniques, defense, social spiders, what else? eg. reproduction could partly be featured here?

• Evolution could be summarized a bit more, as there is an extra article now
• maybe just delete web types, should be handled in extra article.
• Spider bites appears good now, could use better picture, and shortened even more

--Sarefo 23:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Also, parts of the article are a bit messy, with bulleted lists mingling with text and photos. Maybe some parts should be re-written to flow better. IronChris | (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations need to be added and section structure and layout needs improvement. Section on taxonomy and phylogeny needed. Shyamal 11:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Have removed all bullets and have added citations for numerous factoids. Have attempted some improvement in the flow. Hope it is better than before. Shyamal 04:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Needs expanding and reorganising. IronChris | (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The article has re-organised extensively and expanded slightly since Stefan's comments were posted. There is now a diet section, and an anatomy section (so covering "what crabs eat" and "physical characteristics" suggested above). Lifespan, behaviour and other similar topics are very variable within the group, making it difficult to write a meaningful text. --Stemonitis 15:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• The sections should be something like "morphology", "feeding behaviour", "diversity", "taxonomy", etc., not just a list of suborders, that can be done (and is done) just as well in the taxobox.
• In accordance with this, the emphasis should be less on the taxonomy (of very little interest to most readers), and more on the critters themselves (what do they look like? what is their behaviour and ecology like? What is their economical importance?)
• The article also needs REFERENCES, as always. IronChris | (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've re-written it from scratch. I hope I have answered all the points you raised. I still think the economic importance is too short, but I'm not a specialist in agricultural pest control by any means, so I didn't want to say too much on that. --Stemonitis 14:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

Done. A lot of references are still needed, or at least the formatting needs to be altered so that it is clear which of the external refs. is the source for which statement. --Stemonitis 15:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Weights and/or sizes are now present for the species which are discussed in depth. --Stemonitis 10:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

In this photograph only the top woodlouse is Oniscus asellus; the two below are Porcellio scaber. (edit comment)

• Headers to divide it up into appropriate sections
• References. IronChris | (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• sense organs
• reproductive organs
• what other sections would make sense? --Sarefo 16:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

gregorio da gama

gregoriodagama@yahoo.com (edit comment)

I'll edit it out, but that's all I can do from a cranky PC at school. Sjester 19:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)SJester (edit comment)

Done. --Stemonitis 10:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

1. Much of the article is unreferenced — ideally every fact should be backed up with a citation, but there should definitely be at least one (inline) reference per paragraph, (one per sentence would not be unreasonable). It's OK to re-use references, but try not to rely too heavily on a very small number of references. Online sources are preferred to otherwise equivalent paper ones for ease of checking; if you can find alternatives to Grzimek (which I guess few other Wikipedians have access to), then so much the better. If not, then not to worry.
2. GA reviewers are likely to pick up on weasel words like "The eggs are said to have to dry out". The obvious question is: by whom? Once you know who says so and where, you can cite that as a source.
3. I didn't see any clear description of what distinguishes T. longicaudatus from other species in the same genus. I assume that most of the morphoplogy section applies equally well to T. cancriformis and others.
4. The lead calls T. longicaudatus "primitive". Biologists hardly use this word any more, because it is related to an outmoded view of evolution that equated complexity with advancement. T. longicaudatus has had 200 million years longer than most species to adapt to its environment, and is almost certainly exquisitely suited to it, so is hardly "primitive". An animal like that would normally be called "simple" instead (although even that captures the situation imperfectly, in my opinion).
5. The article ends by claiming that the two subspecies "have not been officially accepted". Nothing is official in taxonomy, so either the taxa have been properly published or they haven't. It may be that some scientists don't believe that there is a real distinction, but that's a quite different claim. I can find very little information about the subspecies, so unless you've got some good references about them, it may be best simply to ignore the fact that some infrapsecific taxa may have been proposed at some point. It would be amazing if there weren't a fair amount of genetic variation in such a widespread species with so little mobility.

There are also some small minor formatting issues (units, n-dashes for ranges of numbers) and a couple of typos, but they can be dealt with later. For now, referencing the text is the most pressing task. --Stemonitis 16:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, I took care of that (or most of it, at least). I also added a vernal pool comparison double-image. --Crustaceanguy 16:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

• headers to divide the article up into appropriate sections ("structure", "types", etc.);
• less complex information for non-specialists; in its present state it isn't very accessible to most people;
• more information about the antennal types of different taxa;
• explanation on the different types of antennae (filliform, pectinate, etc.). IronChris | (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• references
• external links
• appropriate headers to divide it up into neat sections (e.g.: anatomy, diversity, etc.) IronChris | (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• Headers to divide it up into appropriate sections
• A less technical language, particularly in the introduction, to be easier to understand for non-specialists
• References. IronChris | (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)