Talk:Dryomyza anilis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 20:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this has been such a long wait for review (we're a bit backed up at WP:GAN). I'll be able to get to this over the next week. Looking forward to reading it! Ajpolino (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok made a first pass through the article. It's certainly a massive improvement over how the article looked before you started on it! The biggest weakness of the article now is that overuse of separate sections (in an order that sometimes seems somewhat arbitrary) muddies the flow of the article. If you can streamline and re-organize the article, I think you'll find it makes it a quicker and clearer read (and no less informative)! The second thing is that the article is often wordy and jargony. I'll go through and copyedit it, since I think it's often challenging to remove words from your own writing. Please make sure I haven't changed the intended meaning of any of the sentences. Thanks for the interesting read! I assume it's exam time at Wash U, so no rush on this. We can hold the review open as long as need be. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajpolino: Thanks once again for taking a look at the article, and for your understanding with the timeline! I definitely agree with the changes you have suggested--especially as far as flow, organization, and jargon go. I believe I have been able to work on implementing most (hopefully all?) of them. Please let me know what feedback you have for me from here and what else I can do to improve this page. AnuBalasubramanian (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:
•Just a thought, the lead currently begins with a taxonomic note. This seems like it would be of interest only to a limited number of readers (i.e. a subset of fly enthusiasts) whereas the other material about its appearance and range would be of interest to nearly all readers. Perhaps we could flip the order so the lead begins "Dryomyza anilis is a common fly from the family Dryomyzidae. It is found through a variety of areas..." and then the taxonomic note at the end of the lead? If you feel strongly about the current setup, it's no big deal. Done

•"The owners were, on average, smaller than the territory owners or copulating males, respectively." - This sentence is confusing. Sounds like you're saying the territory owners were smaller than themselves. Can you reword it to clarify? Done

•There's a lot of jargon in the "Life History" section. Certainly some jargon is necessary to differentiate morphologically similar flies. But anywhere you could clarify jargon by wikilinking terms to places they're explained, using the wikilink text function to clarify something (e.g. [[Jargon word|layman's description]]), or just explaining a term in a parenthetical phrase wherever it's not too awkward to do so would greatly improve the readability of the article.

•"Males do not need to maximize their gain rate in each individual mating, but rather should seek to maximize their average gain over several matings." - Can you rephrase this? Right now it reads as if we're giving advice to male flies...

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
•Perhaps the "Morphology" subsection under "Description" should be renamed "Taxonomy" since that seems to be the real topic of the paragraph... Done

•Maybe the "Home Range and Territoriality" section would be better-named "Behavior".

•Also I'm not convinced you need separate subsection headings for every paragraph in "Home Range and Territoriality". It would probably flow just fine as a single un-interrupted section with several paragarphs... (though again if you feel strongly about this I probably won't fight you on it). Done

•I think the "Reproductive anatomy" section should be merged into other sections. Either into the morphological description in the "Description" section, the morphological description in the "Life history" section (which maybe should also get moved into the "Description" section), or the "Mating" section. It's weird that in the current configuration we hear about tapping in the "Reproductive anatomy" but don't learn what it is until the "Mating" section below...

•"Enemies" is a weirdly short section. Maybe it can be merged with "Food resources" and "Conservation" sections into an "Ecology" section? Or put somewhere. Sometimes having more sections just muddles an article...

•Same with the "Protective coloration and mimicry" section - It seems too short (and random) to justify a section devoted to it. Perhaps in the Description or Life History>Eggs sectoin?
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
•"D. anilis adults are medium-sized, ranging in overall length from 7–144 mm, but are typically 12 mm long. Their coloration is light brown and orange with large red eyes." is cited to [1] which says "length about 12mm." Could you add a citation to wherever you found the "7-144mm" bit?
•Ah, pretty sure 7-14mm is meant from the "Biology and immature stages of Dryomyza anilis Fallen (Diptera: Dryomyzidae)" reference. For facts and figures, even though it can be tiresome, it's nice if you always have the relevant ref at the end of the sentence it supports (even though this may mean repeating some references several times). That way if other editors add more information to your paragraphs in the future, it'll still be clear what figures came from what source.

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
•The reference "Male contesis for territories and females in the fly Dryomyza Anilis" is spelled wrong. It's spelled wrong at the Elsevier website as well, but if you open the PDF you can see it's supposed to be "Male contests for territories..." Done

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
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):
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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: