Jump to content

Talk:Apororhynchus/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: I'll do this one. Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • First paragraph should be a lead section, i.e. a summary of the article, not something that introduces new materials. I've therefore split it so that most of the material is in a new section on the Order. The lead needs to summarize each of the sections in the article.
  • Thanks. I've added a bit to the lead, one sentence per section. Is this enough? Or is the lead still too short?
  • Better. I've mentioned the host bird orders, too.
  • The account of the order contained material which talked about the -ida Order, the -idae Family, and the -us Genus: I've therefore split it into 3 paragraphs. However, given that this is monotypic, I wonder if this distinction is valid: did you mean to talk about each level separately (a very taxonomic approach) or is there basically just a list of features-of-the-order, in which case it all needs rewording a bit?
  • Indeed you are correct, the traits apply to all species in the order or genus. To clarify, I've stuck to referring only to the genus.
  • OK, that makes it sharply clear that the article is about a genus, so I've reordered the lead sentence to match the article's title. Apart from conforming to the MoS, it seems to me a whole lot clearer like that.
  • Piriform is a dab page. Choose the target page to link. Done
  • I really just wanted readers to know this means "pear-shaped". I can just change it to pear-shaped and remove the link.
As you like; what you can't do is leave it as an orange dab-link. You may be able to link it to a Wiktionary definition.
  • Suggest you add images of one or two of the bird hosts.  Done
  • Added section on hosts with a gallery of images of all known hosts. What do you think?
  • More than I was expecting, but why not. I don't find that mode=packed works well when images are of differing shapes - the long low images make the birds MUCH BIGGER than the tall narrow ones, which seems random and arbitrary, so I've reformatted it.
  • There should be a 'Phylogeny' section with a phylogenetic tree showing the group's relationships.
  • Ideally yes, but according to this recent paper [1] "insufficiency of morphological data seems also to explain why the taxon has not been included in phylogenetic analyses so far" so we are out of luck there apparently. This paper [[2]] claims to have molecular sequences for some related species, but I can find nothing on this genus.
  • I guess no fossils are known? But quite often, fossils of hosts contain fossil parasites, so it's not impossible.
  • This may seem odd, but I think I've captured nearly *everything* written on this genus. Well, at least everything I can access. I have no information on any fossil record, unfortunately.
  • Ok. One always has to be a BIT careful about claims of comprehensiveness, however.
  • Why are ten of the refs formatted with AUTHOR IN CAPS and the other twelve not? It's really not necessary or desirable to use all caps; we need just one format, and I suggest we go with the usual {{cite journal |last= |first= ...}} format that you've used for some of the papers.
  • Fixed all caps, working on standardizing citation formats.
  • Similarly, when there are two authors, some of the refs use AND, some use &, and some just use the usual semicolon (;). Again, I suggest we go with the semicolon.
  • Fixed by using all "ands", working on standardizing citation formats.

Discussion

[edit]

First of all thank you for taking on this review Chiswick Chap! I have addressed the first recommendations and working on the latter shortly. The citations are a mix of some I have added and some that were added by other editors, so that may take a bit of time to standardize. Mattximus (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Map is a welcome addition.
Ok I've now migrated all citations to the format you recommended, so it should be much better standardized. I even found a few errors and corrected them. I noticed your comment about the red link for Oriolus cristatus, which I agree should not be there. This bird was mentioned in this ancient reference but I can't find a modern synonym for this bird. Any ideas on how to handle this? And I believe I've now addressed all comments, and I'm thankful for all your edits as well! This started as an experiment to see if I could work on the first alphabetical species and it looks better than I expected! Thanks again, please let me know what to work on next. Mattximus (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've fixed some simple citation errors, but there are a few remaining issues (bullets below).
  • Oriolus cristatus is described from India, not Brazil. Something very wrong here. The description is very old and quite likely wrong; and the assignment to that species must be wrong also. The least we can do is to add a footnote to this effect, i.e. the parasite was found in an unknown bird, possibly resembling an oriole, but the name given can't be right.
  • I went to do this very suggestion, but it looks like you beat me to it. Thanks for all your effort on this article I was not expecting such a good review.
  • Several journal citations are lacking the name of the journal, the volume/issue (some journals don't have both), or the date.
  • Ok I *think* I've fixed everything that is missing. Two journals for the Soviet Union do not use the volume/issue as far as I can tell [3] so those are the only ones left off.
  • Bhattacharya 2007 has the unacceptable page range 1-225.
By the way, the gallery looks much better now, thanks for cleaning it up. Mattximus (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've made one more pass and looked up what seems to be the last missing date. I'm glad you are pleased the article is the better for this review. I hope you will take the time to review one or two articles from the GAN queue for the benefit of other editors. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]