![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Someone has been doing some serious screwing around with this article. I remember being here awhile back and it was much better, so I looked through the previous edits. I reinstalled the tax box w/o the image as someone more knowledgeable than I needs to ensure it is the correct species. I also fixed the citation in the text and added the correct reference format (Or did I?) in a new Footnotes section. And there are certainly much better references than that. Mostly the reference is about the broad mite. Also, considering the effect of this species, I believe that it rates much higher then "Low-importance." But I am certainly not an expert on this species. Thomas R. Fasulo ( talk) 16:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Almost certainly several further interesting things could be added, including status outside of US (e.g. Protected Zone status in UK & Finland) and propensity for developing resistance to insecticides & the impact that has. Feels to me like the amount of the article focused on natural enemies is a little out of proportion. The DeBarro paper is almost certainly a better citation for the taxonomy than the Fan paper. Phil Northing ( talk) 17:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I am confused about the identity of the insect described in this article. Though the title is "Silverleaf whitefly" and the B biotype is mentioned several times in the text, the text does not seem to be exclusively about this biotype. I suggest that the text be narrowed down and a separate article be written about B. tabaci or the tobacco whitefly as a whole. This is justified in my view, because the B biotype is quite distinctive from the rest and is much more damaging to crops. I agree with Thomas Fasulo that an article about the B biotype deserves a higher importance rating. Dogo ( talk) 21:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The taxonomy of Bemisia tabaci is an interesting one and DeBarro makes a strong argument that this is actually a species complex. It would be worth explaining this I think (and if I have time I will re-read the paper and perhaps make an attempt at changing this!) Phil Northing ( talk) 17:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I am quite sure that there is no difficulty in distinguishing it from Drosophila sp. (the common fruitfly), as stated in the lead of the article, and that claim needs a reference or it should be removed. Wastrel Way ( talk) Eric
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Someone has been doing some serious screwing around with this article. I remember being here awhile back and it was much better, so I looked through the previous edits. I reinstalled the tax box w/o the image as someone more knowledgeable than I needs to ensure it is the correct species. I also fixed the citation in the text and added the correct reference format (Or did I?) in a new Footnotes section. And there are certainly much better references than that. Mostly the reference is about the broad mite. Also, considering the effect of this species, I believe that it rates much higher then "Low-importance." But I am certainly not an expert on this species. Thomas R. Fasulo ( talk) 16:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Almost certainly several further interesting things could be added, including status outside of US (e.g. Protected Zone status in UK & Finland) and propensity for developing resistance to insecticides & the impact that has. Feels to me like the amount of the article focused on natural enemies is a little out of proportion. The DeBarro paper is almost certainly a better citation for the taxonomy than the Fan paper. Phil Northing ( talk) 17:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I am confused about the identity of the insect described in this article. Though the title is "Silverleaf whitefly" and the B biotype is mentioned several times in the text, the text does not seem to be exclusively about this biotype. I suggest that the text be narrowed down and a separate article be written about B. tabaci or the tobacco whitefly as a whole. This is justified in my view, because the B biotype is quite distinctive from the rest and is much more damaging to crops. I agree with Thomas Fasulo that an article about the B biotype deserves a higher importance rating. Dogo ( talk) 21:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The taxonomy of Bemisia tabaci is an interesting one and DeBarro makes a strong argument that this is actually a species complex. It would be worth explaining this I think (and if I have time I will re-read the paper and perhaps make an attempt at changing this!) Phil Northing ( talk) 17:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I am quite sure that there is no difficulty in distinguishing it from Drosophila sp. (the common fruitfly), as stated in the lead of the article, and that claim needs a reference or it should be removed. Wastrel Way ( talk) Eric