Talk:Diptychophora galvani

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Diptychophora galvani/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 19:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing now … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• It measures a large centimeter in wingspan – "A large centimeter" makes no sense.

  Rephrased.

• and is easily distinguished from all nearby species – Nearby? Not sure what this means.

  "closely-related species".

• Certain of the correction and quality of the data – doesn't make sense. I guess you mean "correctness"?

  "correctness", you're correct!

• These are essentially orange at their base and tip, – why "essentially"?

  That was a poor phrasing in French too. Corrected here and over there.

• galvani – and other species and genus names, always should be in italics.

  Corrected.

• dismissed two years ago – best give absolute time, or this will be outdated in a year

  "two years before", referring to the previous sentence situating the description in 2021.

• in tribe Diptychophorini – "the" tribe?

  Corrected.

• pabulum – what is that? Link or explain?

  Linked to the Wiktionnary (wikt:pabulum).

• the type series also includes specimens – contradicts what was said earlier (two specimens)

  There are 5 specimens in the type series, from two localities. I did not understand this remark.

• Dr Galvão had decided to oppose the president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro when in a public international press conference – sentence lacks punctuation. Also, "decided to" seems redundant, just say he opposed.

  Agreed. "opposed" is more straightforward, please feel free to correct the punctuation.

• and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, gave him their 2021 Scientific Freedom and Responsibility Award. – punctuation off.

  I tried to correct it, but again help from a native speaker is welcome. :)

I'm concerned that some sentences don't make any sense at all (first three examples above). I recognise this is a translation from the French, but I'm worried that other sentences might be wrongly translated as well, but in a way that is not immediately obvious to me. When doing translation, it is important to check the content against the original source whenever possible. Has this been done? Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Jens Lallensack, thank you for this helpful feedback which arrived way sooner that I would have expected. It is the first time I am going through the GA procedure, thus I am glad to have such a trained reviewer to collaborate with ;) As you correctly guessed, English is not my mother tongue, but I am the author of the original article on the French-language Wikipedia. I was not the one who translated the first paragraphs but an unlogged user, and I also found confusing the phrasings you mentioned, astoninshingly close to the French ones. I have been through the remarks you made, but I must confess it is impossible to me to make sure the phrasings and the punctuation are natural for native speakers. In that respect I fully trust you to emend the sentences. At least I can ensure the phrasings do not seem to be misleading. Totodu74 (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, so as the original author, you are of course familiar with the sources, so I have no objections of course. I just did a copy edit for language, please have a look if all is correct (I'm from Germany and not a native speaker either, but I think it must be good enough now). Looking good now, I am promoting! Thanks for translating this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow, the process was incredibly fast! Thanks for your time and input! Cheers, Totodu74 (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)