Talk:Ameles decolor

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 18:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll do this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• The article structure is basically as usual.

• The language variant used is inconsistent as we have British English "millimetres" but American English "color", "molt", "behavior" where we'd expect "colour", "moult", "behaviour". As it's an Old World species described by European scientists there seems no good reason to use American English here.

• [4], should be ,[4]

• "Tegmin (front wings)" =>"The tegmina (leathery front wings)"

• hasn't been done?

• " have dense hairs" => "are densely hairy".

• "are only sparingly haired." => "are only slightly hairy." or "have only a few hairs."

• "Taxonomy and Discovery" should be "Taxonomy" as this includes the initial description.

• The heading "Life Cycle" should be "Life cycle".

• "males will tap" ... "males will spread" ... "will attempt" ... "will remain" ... "will develop" etc: this future tense is confusing and unnecessary. Please just say "males tap" ... "males spread" ... "attempts", etc.

• "This is designed" ... is the language of Teleology, and controversial. Please avoid it.

• Cannibalism: [5] Battiston states that this takes multiple forms, i.e. i) sexual ii) male-male and iii) female-female. Best we say so or we give undue weight to the sexual variety.

• The heading "Eggs and Life Stages" should be "Life cycle stages", as the egg is a stage.

• How many nymph stages are there?

• You ought to say that metamorphosis is incomplete, by the way.

• "Distribution and Evolution" is a bit unusual and it might imply a theory that the modern distribution is a guide to the evolutionary history, which is a controversial position in biogeography: best we avoid it.

• Suggest you head the section "Distribution" and promote "Evolution" to the same level as "Distribution".

• "Sardegna" => "Sardinia".

• "in herbaceous vegetation, including grasslands, arid fields, and wooded areas". So do we mean non-woody herbs or woody trees and bushes? Both Maquis and Garrigue are woody.

• hasn't been done? We can't describe Maquis and Garrigue as "herbaceous".

• "Tertiary Period" => "Tertiary", that's sufficient and is the usual form nowadays.

• "Pliocene Epoch" => "Pliocene", that's sufficient and is the usual form nowadays.

• "Mionene Epoch" => "Miocene", at least people have heard of it.

• "(more specifically the Bosporan era)" --- please delete, this links unhelpfully to a short period in the history of Classical Greece.

Cladogram

• Suggest you mention that the phylogeny is based on 21 morphological characters, i.e. it is not molecular.

• Cladogram shows only 3 species, but the Evolution section discusses 5. It'd be nice if these matched up.

• It might be nice to add a label "Tertiary" (|sublabel1=Tertiary, etc) for the appropriate branch of the cladogram, again to match the text.

• The tree is rooted as "Ameles" but this is misleading as drawn, as there are more species. I suggest you amend it adding a branch for "other species" so that Ameles (in Italics) leads rightwards to both the species shown and the other species not shown.

• Ah, a picture is worth 1000 words. Guess I should have said "sister branch". See below for the tree. And by the way, cladogram code really must be formatted systematically or it's unmaintainable - ideally, just copy and paste my tree; modify it if you like but retain the formatting.

Images

• Images are all on Commons and seem to be properly licensed. The license for the lead image is somewhat idiosyncratic but seems to confer the necessary rights.

• The second image "A larval stage ... emerging from a molt" is confusing as the insect is shown sitting on a white structure which doesn't look like a mantis exuviae; nor much like a mantis ootheca?

Citations

[1] is a naked URL, please cite it in the usual way (the style of [2] will do).

• Spot checks are all fine.

Summary

Etriusus: That's about it from me. Over to you! Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap All done. I couldn't find anything that explicitly stated how many nymph stages Ameles decolor goes through and I couldn't get the sublabel to work, but besides that, this should be everything. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 20:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Ameles	other species A. syriensis A. aegyptiaca A. dumonti A. heldreichi A. decolor before Tertiary

• Etriusus@ Some items remain, see above. Here's how I'd see the tree. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap, okay, now that should be everything. Thanks for making the cladogram, I see where the misunderstanding came from. I've never been particularly skilled at making cladograms, but it is what it is. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 15:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Ameles decolor has one of the most complex mating rituals of any praying mantis? Source: https://bioone.org/journals/journal-of-orthoptera-research/volume-17/issue-1/1082-6467_2008_17_29_MBOTMA_2.0.CO_2/Mating-behavior-of-the-mantid-Ameles-decolor-Insecta-Mantodea/10.1665/1082-6467(2008)17%5b29:MBOTMA%5d2.0.CO;2.full
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Al-Amir bi-Ahkam Allah

Improved to Good Article status by Etriusus (talk). Self-nominated at 02:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ameles decolor; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• New Good Article status verified. Earwig found nothing resembling copying. Long enough and properly sourced. QPQ done. Interesting hook, verified in its source. Per DYK rules, this source must appear on a sentence within the article that states the same claim as the hook; I repeated an existing footnote to fix this issue. Otherwise, good to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)