Talk:Abantiades latipennis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello! We'll begin the review ASAP :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That was fast! Thanks, :) Maedin\^talk 07:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Having murmured on this for 12 hours, I'm now thinking that it may be best to withdraw. I'm not sure it meets the required standard. Not very much material exists on the moth and perhaps that limits the article coverage too much. Would you agree? Maedin\^talk 20:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No need to withdraw. We'll see what we need to do, and I'll guide you there! No worries :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If I may be so bold (I saw this and considered taking the review, but was too late)—I don't think that's necessary. I've written GAs on animals of which much less is known: you just need to cover everything that is available, or at least a good proportion. I think this article may well make it, but the lead seems rather limited, and should summarize more of the article. Also, it's probably good to mention in the text when it was discovered and first described. Together with the first paragraph of the current "Distribution and habitat" section, that could make a "Taxonomy" section. Ucucha 20:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, both, for your confidence. I'll see what I can do, ;-) Maedin\^talk 06:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Review

Here's what the article needs:

• The lead is incomplete, as per WP:LEAD, the entirity of the article should be reflected in summary. For this article, summarize/add the following in the lead:

• The impact, both pro and con, of clearfelling on the species.
• Size, shape, color, gender differences
• Mating, egg laying ritual, pupation and metamorphic aspects, lifespan
• (to be determined later in the review)

•  Done Yay! We're done with the above stuff... cool :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• The article needs a distinct Taxonomy section. You might consider relocating this sentence out of Distr. and habitat and using it as the first sentence of Taxonomy: "A. latipennis is one of fourteen species currently identified within the genus Abantiades, all of which are found exclusively in Australia." The remainder of the section should comprise or address:

• Specifics of where/how Tindale found the first specimens.
• Was latipennis the original species name? From what was the name derived?
• Sometimes species are relocated from one genus to another, and sometimes genera are renamed after speciation. Is Abantiades the initial genus?

•  Done The Taxonomy section is pretty spot on! Good job Maedin, and bless you Stemonitis!!! Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll do fine working on these issues, and please feel free to throw all of your concerns about anything squarely at me :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I'll start working on it as soon as I have a chance. Maedin\^talk 06:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've chipped in with the taxonomy section. Tindale doesn't give an etymology; latipennis clearly means "wide-winged", but I haven't seen anything that says that in reference to this genus (although there are plenty for species called latipennis in other genera). It was indeed described in Abantiades, and doesn't appear ever to have moved. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Stemonitis. I have been searching for that document and was unable to gain access to it. Am I blind or was it actually hard to find?! There's a bit of additional information there I can add to the article; again, thank you! I had begun to get discouraged, :p Maedin\^talk 12:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't so straightforward, actually. I already had the citation, from which I needed both the volume number and the first page, when I went to the South Australian Museum's website (and to guess that "RSAM" meant Records ...). Even then, the PDF download was less simple than it should have been. Hopefully with the link I provided, it will be easier for everyone who follows; let's just hope they don't change the URL... --Stemonitis (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That was very thoughtful, Stemonitis :) thx! Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Is this review nearing completion? Just checking since it's been going awhile. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• We're almost ready! Sorry for any slowness :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, sorry. I'm ready whenever Robert is. Have just finished adding a bit more. Maedin\^talk 10:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearfelling / pest

I (a lay reader) am a little confused. The intro states that :

Established clearfelling practices favour the Pindi moth and could lead to it being considered a pest, although the damage caused to the trees on which it feeds is not at present considered significant.

But the main body has a more alarmist tone for Tasmania.

Which is correct? Should the intro specifically mention Tasmania?

Thx for your questions; this will be addressed further in the review :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Family: Hepialidae

Please pardon another question from a lay reader, but ...

Following the link to Tindale leads to Hepialidae where the infobox includes

Order: Lepidoptera

Suborder: Glossata

Infraorder: Exoporia

Should Abantiades latipennis also show this suborder and infraorder? ... for completeness, ... for GA. Chienlit (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally, such intermediate categories are only included where they are directly relevant to an article. Because Glossata and Exoporia directly contain Hepialidae, they are mentioned in the Hepialidae article. However, they seem too remote for this article to merit inclusion. Ucucha 22:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

One last nitpick

I will pass the article after one teensy fiddle: in the Morphology and id section, define "ostium bursae"... the Wikis are dry! ;) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the ostium bursae is the copulatory opening—my sentence structure wasn't clear enough on that. I've put it in brackets now instead, does it help? Thanks for your great copy edit! Good improvement. Maedin\^talk 10:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Good fix! Looks like we have everything we need, so I'm going to pass to ga! Congrats! I'm glad I had a chance to work with you, and I hope you'll nom other articles in the future, because you're a very good writer and editor :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hurray! Thanks so much! You've been great to work with, too, :) I've appreciated your feedback. And thanks to Stemonitis for the taxonomy work and Ucucha for the support and help. Maedin\^talk 18:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The article Abantiades latipennis passes this review, and has been promoted to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass