Talk:Apororhynchus/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
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)
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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
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)