In Larval in-stars, I don't get why you have the sub-subheadings. You don't really need them. If you're listening to some WikiProject guidelines, don't. Look at GA or FA articles and see what they do if you really need guidance, but just do what's best for the article User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk21:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Okay so I've shuffled the text around as best as I could just skimming all the info, check if it flows well, rearrange the images to prevent cluttering, see if some information better belongs in a different subsection User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk00:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Last sentence of the first par of the lead is too sciencey, you can just say something like "Like other mosquitos, females generally, though with exceptions, have to consume a blood meal before laying eggs." User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk21:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I have reworded this sentence, combining the previous text and the quote you suggested. Could you please take a look and let me know what you think?
XuLily (
talk)
19:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I removed this redundancy. I initially included this sentence (lead paragraph 2, sentence 1) to lead into the next sentence, which focuses on the organism's periodic cycles. Do you think it would be better if I combined these sentences to remove any introduction about the mosquito being studied? e.g. "From studies on this mosquito of development, physiology, and behavioral patterns, this species is noted for developing in periodic cycles, with high sensitivity to light and flight patterns that result in specific wingbeat frequencies that allow for both species detection and sex distinction."
XuLily (
talk)
19:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Taxonomic synonyms should be listed in the taxobox instead of the lead. Add the parameters |synonyms= and make a bulleted list, and then add |synonyms_ref=
"Ae. taeniorhynchus is attributed to taxon author Wiedemann, with naming dated to 1821. Alternate namings for the species include Culex taeniorhynchus (Wiedemann, 1821) and Ochlerotatus taeniorhynchus (Wiedemann, 1821). As a result, the species falls within the Ochlerotatus subgenus" this is very odd wording. Also, I'm sure Wiedemann has a first name and probably an article you could link to. Generally we do "[Nationality] [credentials] [first name] Wiedemann described Ae. (Ochlerotatus) taeniorhynchus in 1821." Also, check out the taxonomy sections of GA/FA diptera articles to see what else they detail. Add close relatives or other members of the subgenus Ochlerotatus (unless there's more than 10). Why did he assign it to the genus and subgenus he did?
[In Progress] I reworded the opening sentence for the Taxonomy section following your format. I will plan to review some other taxonomy sections and add information about relatives / genus/subgenus assignment and will update this bullet point when done. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
XuLily (
talk •
contribs)
19:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I rearranged these images with multiple images - thanks! Do you think the adult female picture should also go with this multiple images group of pictures? I moved it to a different section for now since I thought it was a little repetiive to have the adult male and adult female together. Wondering what your thoughts are on this?
XuLily (
talk)
22:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)reply
First sentence of Taxonomy is written weirdly, should be "In 1821, German entomologist Christian Rudolph Wilhelm Wiedemann gave the insect the species name taeniorhynchus, but unsure if it should be placed in the genus Aedes, Culex, or Ochlerotatus." Then you need to add future authors who included it in Aedes and why they did, or maybe Wiedemann came back some time later and concluded it belonged to AedesUser:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk16:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)reply
"Aedes niger, also known as Aedes portoricensis, is a subspecies of Ae. taeniorhynchus" don't really understand, if it's a subspecies, shouldn't the name be A. t. niger, not just A. niger? Check the source if you read it right. Also, who first identified the subspecies? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk16:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The 3rd paragraph of Taxonomy is much longer and complicated than it needs to be. You can just say "
Microsatellite DNA analysis shows that Ae. taeniorhynchus on the
Galapagos Islands have genetic differences with the mainland populations, with minimal (interbreeding/
gene flow) occurring only during rainy periods. Highland mosquitos [in the x mountains] have low
genetic diversity, likely due to egg dormancy during dry spells" And I don't really get how egg dormancy is related to genetic diversity User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk16:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)reply
In Larval in-stars, I don't get why you have the sub-subheadings. You don't really need them. If you're listening to some WikiProject guidelines, don't. Look at GA or FA articles and see what they do if you really need guidance, but just do what's best for the article User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk21:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Okay so I've shuffled the text around as best as I could just skimming all the info, check if it flows well, rearrange the images to prevent cluttering, see if some information better belongs in a different subsection User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk00:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Last sentence of the first par of the lead is too sciencey, you can just say something like "Like other mosquitos, females generally, though with exceptions, have to consume a blood meal before laying eggs." User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk21:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I have reworded this sentence, combining the previous text and the quote you suggested. Could you please take a look and let me know what you think?
XuLily (
talk)
19:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I removed this redundancy. I initially included this sentence (lead paragraph 2, sentence 1) to lead into the next sentence, which focuses on the organism's periodic cycles. Do you think it would be better if I combined these sentences to remove any introduction about the mosquito being studied? e.g. "From studies on this mosquito of development, physiology, and behavioral patterns, this species is noted for developing in periodic cycles, with high sensitivity to light and flight patterns that result in specific wingbeat frequencies that allow for both species detection and sex distinction."
XuLily (
talk)
19:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Taxonomic synonyms should be listed in the taxobox instead of the lead. Add the parameters |synonyms= and make a bulleted list, and then add |synonyms_ref=
"Ae. taeniorhynchus is attributed to taxon author Wiedemann, with naming dated to 1821. Alternate namings for the species include Culex taeniorhynchus (Wiedemann, 1821) and Ochlerotatus taeniorhynchus (Wiedemann, 1821). As a result, the species falls within the Ochlerotatus subgenus" this is very odd wording. Also, I'm sure Wiedemann has a first name and probably an article you could link to. Generally we do "[Nationality] [credentials] [first name] Wiedemann described Ae. (Ochlerotatus) taeniorhynchus in 1821." Also, check out the taxonomy sections of GA/FA diptera articles to see what else they detail. Add close relatives or other members of the subgenus Ochlerotatus (unless there's more than 10). Why did he assign it to the genus and subgenus he did?
[In Progress] I reworded the opening sentence for the Taxonomy section following your format. I will plan to review some other taxonomy sections and add information about relatives / genus/subgenus assignment and will update this bullet point when done. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
XuLily (
talk •
contribs)
19:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I rearranged these images with multiple images - thanks! Do you think the adult female picture should also go with this multiple images group of pictures? I moved it to a different section for now since I thought it was a little repetiive to have the adult male and adult female together. Wondering what your thoughts are on this?
XuLily (
talk)
22:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)reply
First sentence of Taxonomy is written weirdly, should be "In 1821, German entomologist Christian Rudolph Wilhelm Wiedemann gave the insect the species name taeniorhynchus, but unsure if it should be placed in the genus Aedes, Culex, or Ochlerotatus." Then you need to add future authors who included it in Aedes and why they did, or maybe Wiedemann came back some time later and concluded it belonged to AedesUser:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk16:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)reply
"Aedes niger, also known as Aedes portoricensis, is a subspecies of Ae. taeniorhynchus" don't really understand, if it's a subspecies, shouldn't the name be A. t. niger, not just A. niger? Check the source if you read it right. Also, who first identified the subspecies? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk16:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The 3rd paragraph of Taxonomy is much longer and complicated than it needs to be. You can just say "
Microsatellite DNA analysis shows that Ae. taeniorhynchus on the
Galapagos Islands have genetic differences with the mainland populations, with minimal (interbreeding/
gene flow) occurring only during rainy periods. Highland mosquitos [in the x mountains] have low
genetic diversity, likely due to egg dormancy during dry spells" And I don't really get how egg dormancy is related to genetic diversity User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk16:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)reply