Talk:Diptychophora galvani

Diptychophora galvani has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 17, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Lepidoptera Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of butterflies and moths on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LepidopteraWikipedia:WikiProject LepidopteraTemplate:WikiProject LepidopteraLepidoptera articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brazil Low‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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dismissed two years ago – best give absolute time, or this will be outdated in a year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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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