Talk:Amblyseius anacardii

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

Arthropods Low‑importance Arthropods portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Latin America Low‑importance Latin America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Latin America 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Caribbean Low‑importance Caribbean portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Amblyseius anacardii goes against the reputation of Phytoseiidae, and is considered an agricultural pest?

• Source: "These works reflect that the species of Ambliseus are very varied in Colombia and that they have been informed by preying on different crops of economic importance in the country such as citrus fruits"[1]

• Reviewed:
• Comment: Phytoseiidae is a family of mites known for being biological controls on many pests, however this species (which is a member of Phytoseiidae) is actually considered a pest in its own right. I thought that was very interesting.

5x expanded by Samoht27 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

-Samoht27 (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Starting review--Kevmin § 23:41, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article expansion new enough and long enough. Article is well cited and sourced with neutral wording. The wording in "Behavior" should be massaged a bit, as the opening two sentences are close to the source material. As we already established Phytoseiidae is a mite family in the lede and taxobox, you dont need to mention its family status in the sections prose.--Kevmin § 15:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally the hook fact should be cited after the specific sentence in the article where it is stated, which does not appear to have happened. Im having difficulty in confirming the fact in reference 7 which is the nearest citation to the fact in article, can you quote the source stating the "goes against the reputation of Phytoseiidae" section of the hook/article?--Kevmin § 16:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello Kevmin! I have read your comments, and am working on addressing the issues raised :-). I have addressed the issue with the start of the Behavior section, and have edited the wording to be less repetitive in regards to the mention of the species' family. I have also added a reference to 7 after the direct statement of the content included in the hook. The source does make mention of Phytoseiidae's reputation as a form of pest control, particularly the following sentence in the fifth paragraph of the introduction of the paper: "It has been known for a long time that there are predatory mites that constitute biological controllers of phytophagous mites and their implementation in integrated pest management programs". I hope this proves helpful. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correction: I have since expanded the article, what was previously reference 7 is now listed as reference 8, as I have added a new reference. I apologize for any inconvenience this change may cause.-Samoht27 (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • Article expansion new enough and long enough. Article is well cited and sourced with neutral wording. Reading Valencia et al, i think you may need to adjust the wording of the hook, Its a pest on Citrus in Colombia, but is it only ever a pest in all areas of its range or introduction? Also Valencia et al do not support the assertion of Phytoseiidae, se we need to call out the reputation is purported not supported.--Kevmin § 00:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • Would ALT1: "... that contrary to the perception of Phytoseiidae, Amblyseius anacardii is observed as an agricultural pest?" suffice? -Samoht27 (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All concerns have now been addressed, Al1 hook matches the article and source wording well. This is now looking good to go.--Kevmin § 16:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]