Contents

Talk:Phasmatodea

Phasmatodea has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: October 21, 2015. (Reviewed version).

This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Insects High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Phasmatodea (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Phasmatodea, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.PhasmatodeaWikipedia:WikiProject PhasmatodeaTemplate:WikiProject PhasmatodeaPhasmatodea articles

A fact from Phasmatodea appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 October 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that ghost insects may camouflage themselves as leaves swaying in the breeze? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Phasmatodea.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Traveler460.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There currently is a lack of nearly any paleontology data for the order, and only one extinct genus mentioned.--Kevmin § 15:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are indeed very rare, but I've added some details with sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Phasmatodea/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Delldot (talk · contribs) 15:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this one, comments to follow soon. delldot ∇. 15:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent article. Well organized, comprehensive, well references, well illustrated, interesting. All image licenses check out. All of my comments are minor fixes around clarity of writing:

• Explain unfamiliar words (even if wikilinked) in the sentence (that way the reader doesn't have to leave your article to understand). Examples: cornified, Autotomy, ocelli, elaiosomes, bisexual, photoperiod, circumscription, sclerite

Done these examples and some others. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If there's a simpler synonym (or rewording to express the meaning of words like 'longitudinal', that would be preferable.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The article frequently shifts from singular to plural in a disconcerting way, e.g.:
  • They are born equipped with tiny compound eyes with a limited number of facets. As the insect grows...
  • ...previously thought to be concentrated in the insect from its plant food sources. However, it now seems more likely that they manufacture their own defensive chemicals.
  • The best known of the stick insects is the Indian or laboratory stick insect (Carausius morosus). These insects grow

Done, though its tricky sometimes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Unclear sentence: This chemical spray variation also corresponds with regionally specific color form populations in Florida which also have distinct behaviors. What are 'color form populations'?

Rewritten. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Confusingly long sentence: By lowering the net production of early successional plants by consuming them and then augmenting the nutrients in the soil available to later successional plants through defecation, the walking stick ensures the tendency of early successional plants to swiftly immobilize soil nutrients in light gaps does not stymie new substantial growth and the recycling of the tropical forest.

Rewritten. That incomprehensible sentence predated our involvement in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This doesn't need to be dealt with before passing GA, but it might be worth thinking about expanding the As pets and In art sections or incorporating them elsewhere in the article since they're stubby.

I've merged the short sections for now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall really excellent work, I have no major concerns. All of these comments should be pretty quick fixes. If you disagree with any of them or of the edits I made we can discuss. delldot ∇. 17:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. user:Cwmhiraeth and I will look at these comments as soon as we can. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on the review. I think we have dealt with all your comments. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, I have no complaints. delldot ∇. 20:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your review and comments. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phasmida might be the valid name now. Bob Webster (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - see http://phasmida.speciesfile.org/Common/basic/Taxa.aspx?TaxonNameID=1199226 Shyamal (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Get Stickbugged LOL and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 29#Get Stickbugged LOL until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The currrent version says: "An alternative is to divide the Phasmatodea into three suborders Agathemerodea (1 genus and 8 species), Timematodea (1 genus and 21 species) and Euphasmatodea. for the remaining taxa.[39] This division is, however, not fully supported by the molecular studies, which recover Agathemerodea as nested within Verophasmatodea rather than being the sister group of the latter group.".

This is the first mention of "Verophasmatodea" in the text (it's mentioned in the "Subgroups" table, but not in a way that helps much). In other words, this is meaningful only to someone who already knows a lot about phasmids. Maybe it could be re-worded as "... nested within Euphasmatodea to form the subgroup Verophasmatodea"? I'm not going to make the edit, as I'm not sure enough that it captures the intended meaning, but perhaps someone with more expertise could make a suitable amendment. Urilarim (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to at least mention what stick insects eat. I didn't see anything either in this article or any on individual species I checked. I did see when they eat, but not what they eat. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]