2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
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).
I have some questions here.
I'd expect inline citations to follow this rule (with some obvious exceptions): either have a source after each statement, or if several statements are attributable to the same source, place the source once in the end (e.d. sentence 1. sentence 2. sentence 3.[source].) I don't think that you follow this principle, for example, in here:
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) report 2005 defines ecosystem services as benefits people obtain from ecosystems, and distinguishes four categories, namely provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural. A fundamental tenet is that a few species of arthropod are well understood for their influence on humans (such as honeybees, ants, mosquitoes, and spiders). However, insects offer ecological goods and services. The Xerces Society calculates the economic impact of four ecological services rendered by insects: pollination, recreation (i.e. "the importance of bugs to hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation, including bird-watching"), dung burial, and pest control. The value has been estimated in the United States at $57 billion.[9]
as the source [9] never mentions anything about "The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment". There are quite a few sentences in the article that do not have a source at the end, and many of them are non-trivial, so what's your take on this?
Added MEA ref, though one might easily consider that particular example self-citing, like naming a book.
So, in all other places, when I see "sentence 1. sentence 2. sentence 3.[source]" should I expect that sentences 1 and 2 are either supported for this single source or should be exempt from inline citations?
Let's focus on specific instances if there are any.
There are a few implicit statements that might instigate a demand for a source. For example, "as the ant expert E. O. Wilson observed" might prompt some wise guy to demand a source there. (Plus, of course, Wilson is universally known for his sociobiology contributions, rather than his early work on ants.) Maybe in this case, it'll be more economical to drop "as the ant expert" in such cases? What's your take on this?
My take? That the gloss is helpful to the reader, but I've dropped it for you.
I agree, and I do this myself (for readers' benefit), but I always include a source. Otherwise, when 6 months from now some wise guy puts [citation needed], it's only going to be harder (you move to a different topic etc.)
Done.
This paragraph appears to be unsourced:
Insects feature in folklore around the world. In China, farmers often regulate their crop planting according to the Awakening of the Insects, when temperature shifts and monsoon rains bring the insects—in particular crickets—out of hibernation. According to custom, if the first thunder of the year happens on this day, it will bring good luck to the entire agricultural production year. But if the first thunder happens before this day, the following period will be rainy and the autumn harvest will be bad. Most "Awakening" customs are related to eating snacks like pancakes, parched beans, pears, and fried corn, all symbolizing harmful insects in the field.
First of all, I’d like to compliment you on taking on a topic that requires a lot of integration. Such articles always require more work, more knowledge, and can be easily (justly or unjustly) accused of OR. However, in my opinion, such articles add a lot of value to Wikipedia.
Thanks!
Effectively the integration of information is what wikipedians do, but if the integration is large, we need to walk a very fine boundary between OR and a proper article layout. Having said that, I think that in “Context” section, you sold me on the consolidation of cultural entomology and ethnoentomology in a single article. However, there are some less significant structural issues that I think need to be addressed:
Since you do combine cultural entomology and ethnoentomology, the current scope is not complete. Notice how your subsection switch back in forth from more general to more specific. E.g. subsections “For dyestuffs” and “In biomimicry” stand out as more specific than everything else. I think the reason for that is that utilitarian usage of insects outside of edible purpose cannot be limited to dyestuff. There are other applications such as Entomological warfare and presumably many others that fall into this category, and given the article’s very broad approach, should be made part of the article.
Added a section 'In warfare'.
Warfare was just an example. Don't you think there is more to it between warfare and dyestuff? I don't expect you to immediately find all possible cases, so I thought that creating a more general category named to include the full spectrum of such uses would do the trick for now. Here is an example of what I mean:
=== more general category ===
==== warfare ====
==== dyestuff ====
==== smth else ====
I see no topics that I feel a burning desire to add, nor see any obvious gaps, no. I believe we have covered "the main points" as required.
C'mon, I find it impossible to believe that dye is the single industrial usage of insects. What about silk, for example? The article mentions eating silkworms, dying with silkworms, but no mention of silk production. I'm sure that a single frivolous Google search will easily yield 3-5 more such applications. I encourage you to notice the hierarchical disparity between, for example, "insects in science" and "dyestuffs". Let me use a trivial analogy here. Suppose I wrote about cars. If you saw this structure in my article:
=== Sedans ===
=== Subaru Forester ===
=== Hatchbacks ===
=== Lexus RX ===
wouldn't you suspect I missed something? This is analogous to how I perceived the initial structure in this article, and that's why I look for gaps, and that's why i find them so easily. See what I mean?
Please let's not argue about principles, there are plenty of those in policy already; nor try to score points. If you have something you want changed, ask for it.
I have put "dyestuffs" into "Science and technology" and added a section on textiles.
The second structural issue that I see is your choice to divide the applications into “direct” and “indirect”. I think that these titles are both misleading (I personally find this classification unusual) and incorrect, as they effectively should dissect “in science” in two parts. For science purposes, insects are used both directly (as Guinea pigs) and indirectly (as a subject of observation and analysis). Examples of the latter are the studies of insect movements and your “biomimicry” subsection. I stop short of suggesting a specific remedy to let you come up with a structural solution that is most appropriate for your style and subject-matter understanding. I’m just pointing out a structural inconsistency that I believe needs attention.
I think it's quite slight, actually, as the uses fall into immediately useful and less practical uses fairly sharply. I've called them "Practical uses" and "Symbolic uses" which I had considered before: it's quite a good fit. That said, all labels itch when sewn into collars.
True, but IMHO "Practical uses" and "Symbolic uses" are a better fit. Biomimicry still feels out of place though: (1) it's not symbolic (2) I think it's part of science. Do you think it might be moved as a subsection into "science" section? (Note, I'm not suggesting dissolving this "clearly distinct, well-defined, definitely relevant, and properly cited" section; Instead, I'm suggesting demoting it by one level and moving it around to get a more logical overall structure.)
Science and technology it is then.
Let me ask you this: are you trying to eschew using 4-level headings? You could've kept Biomimicry subsection inside science...
Generally yes, they don't work well for me; there might be cases where they're vital in very large articles, but they make tables of contents long, and easily become unbalanced (some sections deep, some not).
A minor point: I’d rather combine mythology and folklore than film and literature.
I've merged mythology and folklore for you, though the topics are fairly distinct in this case. Film and literature form a coherent section on creative writing about insects, and they are often combined in similar sections in other articles; film is clearly related to drama, for instance.
I don't insist on separating film and literature.
Another minor point on scope is US-centricity. You have a statement "The value has been estimated in the United States at $57 billion.[9]" where is this same source provides figure 153 billion for the whole world. I'd rather use this figure, for the article is not about insects in US culture...
Done.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
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:
I'd clean up some captions. For example, "It contains an irritant chemical, cantharidin, which is certainly toxic." seems completely irrelevant details to the main topic.
removed.
7. Overall assessment.
These are my comments after the first reading. For now, my overall suggestion is to fix/discuss the issues above. However, please don't take my comments as condescending instructions set in stone — I'm learning this process myself. So, I am open to discussion, and I am very appreciative to the great work that you've already put into this article.
Okay, even though you have responded to my comments in 3a not in the way I would, I think that I shouldn't impose my editorial preferences. I think that we definitely improved the coverage, and your reluctance to use 4-level headers should not be a factor here. If you like this particular style, it's totally your choice. So, I don't have any more comments, and I think that the article satisfies the GA criteria. I hope that you think of this review process as a productive activity. Regardless, but particularly if you don't think of it this way, I'd welcome any suggestions on how I could improve my reviews. Thank you, 凰兰时罗 (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Many thanks for the review, and yes, it was productive. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
