Jump to content

Talk:Owlfly/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 18:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Reviewing now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC) Many thanks as always, I'll respond promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Owlfly" is, in Google, much more common than "Ascalaphidae". Shouldn't his be the article title per WP:Common name? The article is mostly using "owlfly" in any case.
    • Agreed. Let's ask for it to be moved immediately after this GAN. We can't do it now as it tangles up the bot.
  • Taxonbox: Late Jurassic–Recent should be linked.
    • Tried that, it breaks the gadget. The geological periods are however linked in the coloured timebar, e.g. "J" links to Jurassic.
  • clubbed antennae; the latter have short – "the latter" seems to refer to "antennae" here, so repeat "dragonflies" instead?
    • Done.
  • and different wing venation – can be specify? "reticulate wing venation"?
    • Done.
  • 1.5 inches – It's a science article, we really want SI units here I think.
    • Converted.
  • Adult Ululodinae such as Ululodes – state that this is a subfamily of owlflies?
    • Done.
  • Owlflies are worldwide in distribution, occurring in temperate and tropical habitats. – Source?
    • Added.
  • generally called owlflies. – Why "generally", so it isn't an exact synonym?
    • "Commonly".
  • I miss the taxonomy section that other articles have. Taxonomic history? First description + citation? This could also be combined with etymology (of the common name, and what is the etymology of "Ascalaphidae"?). Or maybe a "taxonomy" could be combined with "Evolution"?
    • Added a note on these things, and the etymology, under 'Evolution'.
  • abdomen, monophyletic, nuclear phylogenomic analysis, paraphyletic, mitochondrial rRNA and mitogenomic data – link?
    • Added.
  • The abdomen in many crepuscular species is raised at rest, mimicking a broken twig – That contradicts "During the day, adults rest on stems and twigs with the body, legs, and antennae pressed to the stem"?
    • Fixed.
  • Haploglenius luteus [nl] – To me, personally, it seems pointless to link to a Dutch WP article that is a stub of two sentences. Removing this would avoid a bit of clutter.
    • Unlinked.
  • heliographic signalling – what is that?
    • Glossed.
  • Mesascalaphus may be an entirely more basal member of the family – I don't understand the choice of words, why not simply "may be a basal member of the family"?
    • Done.
  • fossil owlfly genera incertae sedis include Ascaloptynx, Borgia, Mesascalaphus, Neadelphus, Prosuhpalacsa, and Ricartus. – I wonder why you list fossil genera but not recent genera? That does not seem to be consistent (I personally don't think that this list helps a lot).
    • Removed.
  • the Late Jurassic Mesascalaphus may be an entirely more basal member of the family, but it is now believed to be a member of Mesochrysopidae. – OK, but what, then, is the evidence for "dating back to the mid-Mesozoic at least"?
    • Well spotted. The evidence is for a Tertiary origin of the family. I've rewritten the section and added new refs.
  • Cratopteryx from the Early Cretaceous is probably a member of the Myrmeleontoidea; sometimes assigned to the Ascalaphidae, it is better considered incertae sedis.[14] – This information seems a bit random, or are all Mesozoic genera mentioned? Some more general information about the Mesozoic fossil record would be great instead.
    • Removed.
  • which recovered Ascalaphidae as a paraphyletic lineage within Myrmeleontidae; authors in that paper sunk Ascalaphidae into the Myrmeleontidae as subfamily Ascalaphinae – But that doesn't make it paraphyletic? I assume that some additional taxa were moved into Ascalaphidae/Ascalaphinae as well?
    • Yes, the Stilbopterygini and the Palparini, as you can see on the Machado tree at the top of 'Internal'. I've tweaked the wording.
  • advanced groups – "derived"?
    • I'd think that'd be more obscure, not less; "derived" has multiple meanings, at variance with what lay people might imagine.
  • Winterton et al – suggest "and colleagues" to avoid the technical term (which also lacks a dot)
    • Done.
  • not representing clades – maybe add explanation like "(natural groups)" to help with understanding? And link "clades"?
    • Done.
  • Phylogenetic analysis by Machado et al 2018 finds both "Myrmeleontidae" (underscored groups, "Myrm.") and "Ascalaphidae" paraphyletic with respect to each other, requiring a renaming of these taxa, – Isn't that the same study mentioned under "Phylogeny"? Maybe it can be removed there, then, to avoid content duplication and making it easier to follow.
    • Removed.