Talk:Tetracanthagyna plagiata/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 10:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I'll have a go at this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- After the GAN has completed, the article should be moved to "Giant hawker" per WP:COMMONNAME.
- I would be a bit hesitant to rename it to Giant hawker given that most sources tend to use both names in tandem, its a somewhat uncommon dragonfly as well which gives me further cause for keeping the name as is, as most sources tend to refer to it using the scientific name. Ornithoptera (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hm, "Giant hawker" gets over 6,000 hits, whereas the other name gets just 6, so I think COMMONNAME does apply.
- Genuinely curious as to the methodology used to get this figure (google perhaps?) as searching up "giant hawker" in quotations there gets you a lot of unrelated search terms from the area (hawkers are food stalls as well, so it leads to some confusion). Just want to make sure everything checks out. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please let's not argue; live issues remain on the page. A google search for the combination "giant hawker" (in double quotes) with "dragonfly" (also in double quotes) gets over 3500 hits, so I think the finding is robust.
- I really hope I'm not coming off argumentative, I was more genuinely curious as to how you got the information. All of my comments I try to do in good faith. Clarity is important after all! I think this is a fair proposal keeping that in mind. Ornithoptera (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please let's not argue; live issues remain on the page. A google search for the combination "giant hawker" (in double quotes) with "dragonfly" (also in double quotes) gets over 3500 hits, so I think the finding is robust.
- Genuinely curious as to the methodology used to get this figure (google perhaps?) as searching up "giant hawker" in quotations there gets you a lot of unrelated search terms from the area (hawkers are food stalls as well, so it leads to some confusion). Just want to make sure everything checks out. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hm, "Giant hawker" gets over 6,000 hits, whereas the other name gets just 6, so I think COMMONNAME does apply.
- I would be a bit hesitant to rename it to Giant hawker given that most sources tend to use both names in tandem, its a somewhat uncommon dragonfly as well which gives me further cause for keeping the name as is, as most sources tend to refer to it using the scientific name. Ornithoptera (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's certainly a great pity that we don't have a photograph. I couldn't find a CC-by-SA photo, however. Maybe we can ask for one on the talk page. (not a GA criterion)
- There are CC0 photos on commons.Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 01:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
" Robert McLachlan described that his peer Edmond de Sélys Longchamps proposed the separation..." - needs rewording. "Described" in this context generally means "wrote the first formal description of", so let's limit its use to that here.- Changed "described" to "commented". Ornithoptera (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
McLachlan is overlinked, as are Aeshnidae, Borneo (repeatedly), Sumatra, Singapore (repeatedly), Tetracanthagyna and Tetracanthagyna waterhousei.- Removed overlinked subjects as per your recommendation. Ornithoptera (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oreillets is linked to the mammalian ear, which doesn't help.
- Not entirely sure as to what "oreillets" meant in the author's original context, should I put that as simply "oreillets" without any linking? I'm not entirely certain on Odonate anatomy so I'm not sure what it means in this context. Ornithoptera (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well if we're using the term we'd best know what it means and explain it to the reader; but the link is definitely unhelpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Read up on dragonfly anatomy using this source, The Dragonflies of Europe, seems like it doesn't have a Wikipedia page. I'll link it and elaborate on it a bit in the page. The source describes it as "small lobes on the second abdominal segment in males" and specifically uses Fraser as the source for the term. Ornithoptera (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- That sounds exactly right.
- Read up on dragonfly anatomy using this source, The Dragonflies of Europe, seems like it doesn't have a Wikipedia page. I'll link it and elaborate on it a bit in the page. The source describes it as "small lobes on the second abdominal segment in males" and specifically uses Fraser as the source for the term. Ornithoptera (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well if we're using the term we'd best know what it means and explain it to the reader; but the link is definitely unhelpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not entirely sure as to what "oreillets" meant in the author's original context, should I put that as simply "oreillets" without any linking? I'm not entirely certain on Odonate anatomy so I'm not sure what it means in this context. Ornithoptera (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- The use of the "rp" template to put actual page numbers into the main text, specially for mere 5-page papers (refs by Leong and Fraser), is undue and untidy; let's remove them.
- Done! Ornithoptera (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, could you do the same for the remaining uses of "rp". All the papers cited should have page ranges, i.e. if you're citing a paper's page 123, it's sufficient to put "|pages=121–129" or whatever in the citation. This differs from books (unless the papers are approaching book-length) where you need to cite the exact pages used.
- Done! Ornithoptera (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Is "upwards of 163 millimeters" about wingspan, as it appears? - best say so.- I'm not sure the hindwing lengths are compatible with the wingspans given? The wings begin a little distance apart on the thorax, and are held nearly straight out (ok, there might be a cosine in their if they're held at a slight angle), so the hind-wingspan looks to be at least twice the hindwing length; and the forewings look to be longer than the hindwings. If the hindwings are as stated up to 84 or 86mm, that'd mean a (female, presumably) hind-wingspan of 168 to 172 mm, no? I think a table or graphic (simple diagram of 2 hindwings with various lengths added as text labels, plus double-those-lengths to give wingspan estimates) would make things a bit clearer.
- The four entries in 'See also' about wingspan/wing area need to be integrated into the main text (two of them are even cited!) as they are evidently part of the 'Is this the largest Odonate?' discussion. I think that needs to be a section of its own. Actually the current "Description" section is nearly all about that subject already, so there is a need for a separate "Description" which actually describes at least the adults (how do males and females differ, apart from size?) and arguably the larva also.
- I suggest the "Largest odonate" section should have a table (or more than one) comparing the available data; at the moment it's a bit chaotic really.
- Most of this addresses the same topic so I'll just reply to here instead of writing three separate comments, I'm not entirely sure as to how to set up a table or what it may look like. There is already a clear vision set up but I don't entirely understand its implementation within the article. You are totally welcome to provide one if that is allowed, maybe in this talk page, but my qualms is simply that I am reiterating source material, so extrapolating wingspan from these sources would be a bit iffy to me. Regarding the "Description", this is the most I could discern regarding the sexual dimorphism (in addition to wing patterning) and other descriptions of the dragonfly's appearance citing various sources on the topic. Most sources on T. plagiata discuss the lifespan (which is why the section is quite dense hah). The "see also" section being linked was just my suggestion on other pages to look at but I wasn't aware it wasn't a good idea to source them, so I'll remove those. Ornithoptera (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- The description will outline the apppearance and coloration of the adults and their distinctive features, as any dragonfly book would do. Take a look at Australian emperor#Description for a typical example. The current section looks nothing like that.
- @Ornithoptera: - As you've used this for the male, why don't you also use this for the female? That would beef up the Description to something much more acceptable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'll try and go through the source tomorrow, sorry for the delay by the way. University is about to start up again for me and I have been trying to juggle both the best I can. In the meantime let me know of any other spaces to improve! Ornithoptera (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's basically the only remaining issue of concern.
- @Chiswick Chap: It should be done now! Please let me know if there are any other concerns! Ornithoptera (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that works a whole lot better, thanks.
- @Chiswick Chap: It should be done now! Please let me know if there are any other concerns! Ornithoptera (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's basically the only remaining issue of concern.
- I'll try and go through the source tomorrow, sorry for the delay by the way. University is about to start up again for me and I have been trying to juggle both the best I can. In the meantime let me know of any other spaces to improve! Ornithoptera (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Ornithoptera: - As you've used this for the male, why don't you also use this for the female? That would beef up the Description to something much more acceptable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- The description will outline the apppearance and coloration of the adults and their distinctive features, as any dragonfly book would do. Take a look at Australian emperor#Description for a typical example. The current section looks nothing like that.
- Most of this addresses the same topic so I'll just reply to here instead of writing three separate comments, I'm not entirely sure as to how to set up a table or what it may look like. There is already a clear vision set up but I don't entirely understand its implementation within the article. You are totally welcome to provide one if that is allowed, maybe in this talk page, but my qualms is simply that I am reiterating source material, so extrapolating wingspan from these sources would be a bit iffy to me. Regarding the "Description", this is the most I could discern regarding the sexual dimorphism (in addition to wing patterning) and other descriptions of the dragonfly's appearance citing various sources on the topic. Most sources on T. plagiata discuss the lifespan (which is why the section is quite dense hah). The "see also" section being linked was just my suggestion on other pages to look at but I wasn't aware it wasn't a good idea to source them, so I'll remove those. Ornithoptera (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- I forgot to say, but I wish you happy new year! It's great to work with you again Chiswick Chap, hope this review goes smoothly! Thank you for taking the time to review this article! Ornithoptera (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your hard work and advice regarding this article and getting it to good article status! I look forward to working with you more in the future! Ornithoptera (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
"Dorrington (2012)" needs a citation.
- "Dorrington (2012)" is "On flying insect size and Phanerozoic atmospheric oxygen" (Citation 21), unless you mean something different, I may be misreading? Ornithoptera (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)