Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Arthropods articles by quality

Also, parts of the article are a bit messy, with bulleted lists mingling with text and photos. Maybe some parts should be re-written to flow better. IronChris | (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Goldfinger820 01:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• needs short introduction
• predatory techniques, defense, social spiders, what else? eg. reproduction could partly be featured here?

• Evolution could be summarized a bit more, as there is an extra article now
• maybe just delete web types, should be handled in extra article.
• Spider bites appears good now, could use better picture, and shortened even more

--Sarefo 23:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• Possibly some more information could be added. IronChris | (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

Needs expanding and reorganising. IronChris | (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• Headers to divide it up into appropriate sections
• References. IronChris | (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• sense organs
• reproductive organs
• what other sections would make sense? --Sarefo 16:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• headers to divide the article up into appropriate sections ("structure", "types", etc.);
• less complex information for non-specialists; in its present state it isn't very accessible to most people;
• more information about the antennal types of different taxa;
• explanation on the different types of antennae (filliform, pectinate, etc.). IronChris | (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• references
• external links
• appropriate headers to divide it up into neat sections (e.g.: anatomy, diversity, etc.) IronChris | (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• The sections should be something like "morphology", "feeding behaviour", "diversity", "taxonomy", etc., not just a list of suborders, that can be done (and is done) just as well in the taxobox.
• In accordance with this, the emphasis should be less on the taxonomy (of very little interest to most readers), and more on the critters themselves (what do they look like? what is their behaviour and ecology like? What is their economical importance?)
• The article also needs REFERENCES, as always. IronChris | (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)

• headers to divide it up into appropriate sections (an obvious one that comes to mind is "Superfamilies" or "Diversity")
• a taxobox (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods/Style suggestions if necessary)
• references, and if necessary external links. IronChris | (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is so short that no subdivision into sections is necessary. A taxobox would suggest that parasitic wasps form a taxon. They don't. It is a polyphyletic group of more or less related insects that share a similar ecology. References and links would, however, be helpful. --Stemonitis 10:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC) (edit comment)