# Talk:Embioptera

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): Jwaase.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This article has a lot of information about this order. Similar to the other pages, the introduction section is quite large, however because of the size of the article and the amount of Content included, I find this an acceptable size and not too superfluous. This page also does a good job going into specific details about the organism and it gives adequate background knowledge. This entry differs from the previous entries that were looked at by the fact that this article discusses social behavior. There are only two short paragraphs and the only behavior discussed is the mother’s decision process regarding giving birth or not. This article also has a further reading section which is beneficial because it gives readers to be linked to more information. Overall, I think this is an effective article because it has sufficient information and gives the reader the ability to further their reading and learning. --Jeremy.winkler (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi my name is Javier Waase I am currently a student at Radford University. I was assigned Embioptera as one of my projects for the semester. One of my assignments was to contribute on the wikipedia page for this order. I wanted to add some information about the dimorphism of the male and female when it comes to silk production. In some literature that I have found it states that males stop producing silk after their final moult. It also goes on to compare the storage of silk in their glands and their production of silk per body mass between males and females. I think this could be an interesting addition to the page. 
Here is the name to the article I mentioned:
Spinning behavior and morphology in the spinning glands in male and female in Aposthonia ceylonica (Enderlein, 1912) (Embiopteran: Oligotomidae). Edglerly et. al, 2011.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwaase (talk • contribs) 19:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Embioptera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714234938/http://www.oligotoma.com/pdf/Engel_Grimaldi_2006.pdf to http://www.oligotoma.com/pdf/Engel_Grimaldi_2006.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This source with 45 citations provides 12 families for order Embioptera. --Hanberke (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The source you give has 12 families, two of which are extinct. I guess different authorities have different views, but we do need to make the article internally consistent. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
This study provides the following explanation (It seems the latest number is 11 families):
Family-group classification of Embioptera has changed considerably in the past 15 years as a result of several papers by Ross (2000, 2001, 2003a, b, 2006, 2007), Szumik (1996, 2004) and Szumik et al. (2008). The current family group classification was summarized recently by Miller (2009). Of 11 families currently recognized (Miller, 2009), five were retrieved as monophyletic in this analysis (including Australembiidae despite evidence from the likelihood analysis, see below); one family, Andesembiidae, was represented by a single terminal taxon and, thus, not tested for monophyly, and two families, Embonychidae and Paedembiidae, were not included. Each family is discussed below in relation to results from this analysis. --Hanberke (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
That study, Miller et al 2012, is the one cited in the Phylogeny section already. I'll update the number of families in the 'Diversity' section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the update. I'll update the family name in the taxobox accordingly. --Hanberke (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
In the lead, the number of species described might be updated as 464 according to the following sources:
Order 2.2.2.3.2 Embioptera (464 species, including †7 species) 

https://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2013/f/zt03703p026.pdf
Insect Biodiversity: Science and Society, Robert, G. Foottit & Peter, H. Adler (Eds.). Wiley-Blackwell (2009)
(https://books.google.com/books?id=r3_DVd5DtGEC&lpg=PA101&ots=vcDHKJaBNU&dq=Foottit%20%26%20Adler%20(2009)&pg=PA101#v=onepage&q=Foottit%20&%20Adler%20(2009)&f=false)
--Hanberke (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the 850 species came from and not all of the four references for the number of species are available to me. I have changed the figure to "over 400" as being a safer estimate, more in line with several sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Embioptera/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 22:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Looks good at first glance, I expect my comments to be brief. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks from me and Cwmhiraeth for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


### Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
All concerns addressed
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
All concerns addressed
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
No issues with source formatting
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
Sources are reliable
C. It contains no original research: 
Spotchecks are okay
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Spotchecks are clear, Earwig's tool is clear.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
Adequately broad for GA level and for a poorly known taxon
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
No extraneous material
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
No issues
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
No issues
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Image licensing checks out to the best of my abilities
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
No issues
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
All concerns addressed, passing shortly


### Comments
I prefer full names for scientists at first mention; I know when discussing etymology it's often the convention not to do so, but I think it preferable to follow Wikipedia convention rather than scientific convention here.
Done.
Link termites/neuropterans.
Done.
I would prefer the two sentences of "Diversity" to be folded into "phylogeny", where there's more context for it, but it's not a requirement.
Done.
"the new family Sinembiidae" What's a new family? Do you perhaps mean that the family was described when those species were described?
Yes. Glossed.
At second mention, Ross can be just "Ross"
Done.
"first fossil member" again slightly ambiguous; first discovered, or earliest known?
Discovered.
Link "Oligotomidae"
Done.
Unlink Myanmar, since it's a country; link amber
Done.
Link/explain "Compression fossils"
Done.
In "Phylogeny", you say the phylogeny of Embioptera has been debated; but the example you give if of the Embioptera's position the broader insect phylogeny; also, if it has been debated, what's the contrary position? Also; was that the only debate, or is the within-Embioptera phylogeny also controversial? I think the material is fine, but some rephrasing/reordering may be necessary. Among other things, the cladogram is better suited to be displayed after the first paragraph, as its discussion the position of the embioptera, not the phylogeny within them.
Rearranged, and separated the external and internal paragraphs more clearly; perhaps this will serve better.
I'd move "distribution and habitat" to somewhere below description; it ties in with the ecology material a little bit better (keeping it a separate section, just reordering sections).
Moved it down. (We normally feel that this goes quite well with 'Diversity' ...)
There's a little repetition with respect to adaptation to tubular dwellings.
Tweaked.
Some grammatical inconsistency in the sentence about characteristic features. I fixed one issue, but I'm unsure how to handle "closed on the underside by a central plate".
Copy-edited, and removed the fragment.
To me, the life cycle would read more naturally if the current first sentence were made the second-to-last. Just a suggestion, though.
Done.
There's some tense variation in "life cycle" that could be eliminated for simplicity.
Fixed.


### More comments
"extend their galleries into new food sources" Are you sure that "into" is what is meant here?
Tweaked.
There's more stuff about adaptation down in the galleries section. It could fit either there or in description, but it needs to be collected, I think.
Done.
Ross's full name, again, isn't needed in "diet"
Done.
Is there information available on how long the males live? It isn't long, sure, but it would be interesting to know more precisely.
The sources just say they die soon; as they don't feed, it's just a matter of starvation, a variable feast as it were; there's no programmed death with a built-in timer or anything like that.
"wasp larva attaches itself" to what?
The host.
"Associates" is an odd term in this context
Well if it were known they were egg predators we could say so; if they were known to be long-term companions but certainly not predators we could say they were symbionts. But it isn't, so they're just associates of some kind.
"Aposthonia ceylonica has been found living inside a colony of the Indian cooperative spider" Which of these is the Embiopteran?
A. ceylonica.
The second paragraph of "parasites and predation" isn't really about either of those things; I'm wondering if its better moved into "ecology"
The whole section is ecology, so demoted it; put the 2nd para in a separate subsection.
I don't think redlinks in the sources section are very helpful.
Gone.
The wing-inflation bit is, I think, too much detail for the lead.
Trimmed.
Last sentence of the lead has two "but"s. Breaking it up would be nice.
Split.
Running through again really quickly, I'm a little concerned by the "unique" in the first paragraph of the body. I assume you intend the word to refer to the location of the glands, but it's ambiguous; also, is it actually supported by the source?
Edited, and yes, it's in the source.

 This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by  the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page. 
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Idioprothoraca has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 15 § Idioprothoraca until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 06:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)