# Talk:Sucking louse

"
Two species of Anoplura are parasites of humans. Pediculus humanus is divided into two subspecies, Pediculus humanus humanus (the body louse) and Pediculus humanus capitis (the head louse). Phthirus pubis (the pubic louse) is the cause of the embarrassing condition known as crabs.
"
color me stupid but isn't that three...  Are we sure that there are only three (I thought there were a few subspecies that everyone thought were the same... but I could be wrong)... - Reboot

That picture is actually of Mallophaga, the other suborder of lice. The head is wider than prothorax.

@Cougroyalty: Just wanted to ask about the change to superfamily because I was looking through taxonomy databases and other sources (see here here and here) that are all saying it is a suborder, not a superfamily. Was just wondering where that came from. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 18:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll try to summarize the issue as best I can.  Book lice/bark lice/bark flies used to be considered part of the Order Psocoptera, and then the parasitic lice were grouped into the Order Phthiraptera - and together, both of these fell under the larger Superorder Psocodea.  However, it has recently been discovered in a 2021 study that the parasitic lice of Phthiraptera actually evolved later, within the larger Psocoptera group.  This rendered Psocoptera as paraphyletic, and thus no longer a "valid" grouping under phylogentic taxonomy.  As a result, Psocodea was also ranked as an Order at this point.  If you check the cladogram on the Louse (Phthiraptera) page, you'll see that Anoplura is under Phthiraptera, which is under the Suborder Troctomorpha, which is under the Order Psocodea.  While Anoplura was previously ranked as a suborder, and that 2021 de Moya et al. study recognized the previous ranking, based on the new study, it could no longer be a suborder, since it is several ranks below an existing suborder (Troctomorpha). In Table 3 of the 2021 study, you can see the old and new proposed rankings. Psocodea becomes an Order replacing Psocoptera, Phthiraptera moves from Order to an Infraorder within Troctomorpha, and then Anoplura moves from a Suborder to a Parvorder.  I see that this has since also been adopted by the Psocodea Species File website. You can click down to Anoplura on that website and see that it also has it ranked as a Parvorder. The sources you cited do not seem as reliable, and are perhaps just out of date. But regardless, it would be impossible for Anoplura to be a suborder, since it is now classified as belonging to another suborder. I'll concede that it is not a superfamily, at least. So I'm going to go ahead and set it as a Parvorder based on these two sources I cited. Cougroyalty (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Pavorder works for me, thanks for the explanation. I'll set the autobox to that then. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 20:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sucking louse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Sophisticatedevening (talk · contribs) 14:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Snoteleks (talk · contribs) 01:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Spotcheck

 Reference 2: accurate information, no copy-paste of copyrighted material, well written.
 Reference 15: I believe it is incorrectly placed in the middle of the Evolution paragraph, otherwise it is appropriate, accurate, no copyrighted material.
 Reference 20: accurate information from the 7th paragraph of the cited source Most studies in the Americas were conducted in Brazil, although we also found data from the United States, Cuba, and Argentina. Prevalence varied from 3.6% to 61.4% [...], no copyrighted material.
 Reference 27: accurate information from the cited source There is one kind of louse (Felicola subrostrata, a chewing louse) that affects cats.
 Reference 30: the cited source is the front cover of a website, it does not mention any number of families nor does it provide a list of the 15 families.
Replaced, figure in the article  here has the list of families
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: 
Don't get me wrong, the article is very well written. But, it should probably do away with the serial repetition of the same reference throughout the same paragraph (and especially the same reference throughout every bullet point on the Families list; it inflates the number of uses each citation has). I've taken the liberty of substituting some below-10 numbers from digits to words, as this is a comment I've gotten in my own past GANs. Also, see additional comments below.
Removed the repetition in the families, all references are limited to being used no more than twice (with the exception of the Bulletin that has 4 because it had the most quality description for it's section)
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. 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): 
Some sentences in the lead are entirely uncited and do not reflect something already present in the main text. For example: 1) Anoplura, formerly known as Siphunculata — there is no mention in the text about this synonym. 2) They occur on about 20% of all placentalian mammal species — this number is never mentioned, and the only mention of mammals outside the lead is Different species of sucking louse have specialised anatomy to help parasitize on different mammals; similarly, there is no mention of placentalian mammals in particular. 3) The sentence that mentions Pediculus humanus is in the lead, fully uncited; only Pthirus pubis is mentioned and properly cited in the text. Outside of the lead, in the In humans section, the text reads it is usually contracted in primary schools. The cited source does mention that it occurs in children between 3–11 years old, but it never mentions that it is contracted usually in primary schools (no "primary" word appears). In fact, it implies quite the opposite, as it reads: Head lice are more commonly diagnosed after school holidays.
Trimmed the lead a good bit to what is in the refs and added sources for the human species, corrected the primary school bit. I tried to avoid citations in the lead for MOS:LEADCITE, but I had one for the parvorder after a previous talk discussion.
C. It contains no original research: 
See previous point.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
No plagiarism detected in the spotcheck or when copying and pasting into a search engine.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
In the Evolution section, almost half of the text is about mentioning two studies that were conducted to map out the evolution of Anoplura and its families. However, after the mention of the studies, there is no explanation of what the studies actually mapped or what conclusions were reached. It's a piece of information that should either be removed entirely or elaborated into something meaningful.
Evolution section cut.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
The article is very well written so far, but it still needs some important fixes. Most importantly, the content of some references do not correspond to the cited text (it probably does not help that many references are non-peer-reviewed websites, some are even commercial websites; Google Scholar could be a helpful tool). I'm putting this nomination on hold until the GA nominator reviews the issues.
I think I got all of the non-reviewed websites bashed out, I'm not sure which ones you mean are commercial though. Text accuracy was fixed above.
Additional comments on the 1st criterion

The text mentions that Anoplura evolved from the order Psocoptera, or book lice. However, the taxobox includes Order: Psocodea. These are not the same taxa, according to their respective articles. This may lead to confusion and should get fixed.
Evolution section cut.
The text links to Herbert Ludwig Stahnke, a page that does not exist. This should probably use the link to Wikispecies instead: [[:species|Herbert Ludwig Stahnke]].
See above.
@Sophisticatedevening: Feel free to respond here. — Snoteleks (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Snoteleks: Thanks for taking a look, I'll get started on addressing those. I'll probably just cut the evolution bit entirely, and I should have most done by tomorrow. Are you alright with pings after? Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 02:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
No problem! Yes, let me know when you're finished — Snoteleks (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
@Snoteleks: Alright I think I've got those addressed, I left notes above for specifics. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 13:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
@Sophisticatedevening Okay, I'll take a look. Btw, by commercial, I specifically meant (what used to be) ref 27, the one about cat lice, because it was a veterinary agency and it seemed quite protective of its content. — Snoteleks (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
@Sophisticatedevening I see there was an uncited mention of Siphunculata in the taxobox still. Per WP:BOLD, I went ahead and provided the reference myself. Tangentially, I also modified the first sentence: instead of writing both names as equal (e.g., [Common name], also known as [scientific name]...), it is preferred to disclose which name is which (e.g., [Scientific name], commonly known as [common name] or [Common name], known scientifically as [scientific name]). Also, just so you know for next time, the synonyms should not be wikilinked, because they redirect to the current page.
The changes look great. I did another spotcheck and found, again, no plagiarism and no inaccurate information. I agree that the citation for parvorder is useful in this situation despite MOS:LEADCITE. I believe the article already accomplishes the minimum requirements for GA.
In conclusion, I am approving your nomination to GA. Congrats! — Snoteleks (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the review! Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 14:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)