Talk:Hirtodrosophila mycetophaga/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AnuBalasubramanian: I will take this. You have been inactive since weeks so please note if there is no response from your side for more than a week from now I will have to fail this nom. The article can then be renominated once my concerns have been addressed. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sainsf: Thank you! I'm active and still able to make changes. AnuBalasubramanian (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome AnuBalasubramanian, welcome back :) I will take a week to post all my comments. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Is there any common name for this fly?
The article needs to be distributed into well-defined sections and a few general changes are necessary, take the GA Drosophila subobscura as a model.

The lead needs to be a good summary of the whole article and proportionate to the length of the article. For an article of this size I would expect a lead of at least twice the length at present, covering all important details from the main text within 2 or 3 paragraphs.
Sections on the taxonomy (and, if data is available, phylogeny) would be necessary to describe the taxonomic history (who described it first, why it is not in Drosophila but we have a synonym and similar details).
The fly's lifespan has yet to be recorded in the wild... in New South Wales, in 1924. This does not belong in Description, which only lists physical features. This part belongs more in Habitat instead, and the discovery part has more to do with when it was described first I guess (part of Taxonomy).
- H. mycetophaga are considered non-social insects, excepting the grouping inherent in their lekking behavior This line itself shows the Social behavior and all mating sections should be merged under one 'Social behavior' section whose first paragraph can be copied from the present Social behavior section and the rest can be subheadings describing lekking.
The lekking details (in Mating) appear to be a bit too emphasized in the article.

May be you can shorten these paragraphs to include just the most important findings or general conclusions of studies instead of describing it in lot of detail?
There are other fly species that have evolved...length of the inter-pulse interval also varies This is not relevant to the subject at hand unless we directly compare them to this species.
Leks may have evolved away ... pheromones may be involved as well Is this a general description of leks? Then it is again irrelevant to this article. You can go for details like H. mycetophaga is one of few species of Hirtodrosophila that exhibits lek mating but not descriptions of other general fly behavior. Female-initiated vs. male-initiated models and hotspot model, if described just as general fly behavior models, are again not relevant.

You need to use convert templates wherever you mention measurements.
You should refer to the fly as H. mycetophaga consistently throughout the article except in the first mention in the lead (and preferably the first mention in the main text as well).
If 2/more consecutive lines are based off the same source you don't need to put the inline citation after each of those lines, just put it at the end of the last line. This needs to be done throughout the article.

Any more images? Maybe you can upload a few free images from Flickr or somewhere; pics need not be of the fly itself you can try some general pics (like this [1] in the above mentioned GA for members of its genus, but up to you). It's not a must for GAs but highly advisable.
Sourcing: Looks like sources on this topic are scanty, but the ones use appear reliable. Inline citations okay (except for the repetition mentioned above) but missing for this line It is unknown if other environmental factors may influence which specific sites H. mycetophaga utilizes.
No dablinks, duplinks or copyvio concerns detected. But there is an issue with the URL in ref. 14 [2].. connection timeout error. Replace or delete it.

Comments on prose

but averaged 17 days in the laboratory If this was based on the results of the particular study cited you can say 'but averaged 17 days in a 1998 laboratory study/experiment' so it does not give an impression that it is an average from many different studies (if that is not the case). Similar wording can be used here: Researchers found that nine out of ten flies reappeared from one day to the next, either to the same fungus or to a nearby one.
makes mating displays easier to see 'display' can be linked to Display (zoology). Other terms worth linking: spores, canopy, larvae, lek, territories, (link terms on their first mention in the main text even if they are linked in the lead; avoid dablinks)
The caption of the image used does not name the bracket fungus and the original description by the uploader does not say a thing. It would be better to replace it with a confirmed image of Ganoderma applanatum (that article has a pic or two I guess).
Once a male H. mycetophaga comes to a lek In general you can just say 'male'. It is understood you refer to the male of the species we are discussing (unless we are talking of multiple species somewhere in the text). Please ensure this is done consistently throughout the article
Females will either accept the male's advances by voluntarily assuming a copulatory position or reject the advances by raising her abdomen It should be 'The female' at the start if 'she' raises 'her' abdomen. Similarly In the event that other males attempt to copulate with the female, the original male will interrupt courtship to chase the other male away should say 'other males' at the end. There may be other instances where the wording might be incorrect.
displays wing-scissoring behavior A few words to explain this would be great, I am not exactly able to picture it in my mind.
The authors of this paper confirm that collections of flies Maybe merge this with the previous paragraph for better flow. Then you can omit 'of this paper' and say 'researchers' instead.
Immature H. mycetophaga in particular Better say 'immature individuals'. There are several other instances I see where you can say 'individuals' instead of H. mycetophaga.
Flies intentionally space themselves as well as their progeny out from other flies Is it true for all flies in general? This line Only about 6% of males were seen outside leks does not seem to say so, in which case the previous line should be slightly reworded to not create confusion. Would also be good to start the 2nd line with 'In a study (maybe mention the year) only about...'
extinctions and re-appearances of rare rain forest species, like H. mycetophaga This is the first mention of an interesting fact as this about the species. The article should try to cover more on this, possibly in an Evolution section.
I am not sure how the material in Conservation deals with protection efforts for the species as the heading implies. I think it has more to do with the general ecological role of the species, maybe rename it 'Ecology'?

More to come. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay these are all my comments for now. In summary:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I await your response. Needs quite some work but no hurry. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other commentary

Regarding Sainsf's comment on needing a taxonomy section: maybe that section could discuss the etymology of the name. 17:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thanks for your comment, LaTeeDa. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status

@AnuBalasubramanian: Please respond by 28th, else this nom will be failed due to inactivity. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 20:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sainsf: Hello! Sorry, didn't get the notifications for this. Will work on it as soon as I wrap up my final exams in a week or so.

@AnuBalasubramanian: it has been nearly two weeks now without any activity here.. I am afraid a GA review can not remain open for too long especially with so many issues to be addressed. If you are busy in real life, it will be especially difficult for you to work on this right now. May be we can have this failed for now so that you can work on the article when you are free and then renominate it? I will leave this open for another 3 days for your response. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 16:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sainsf: Sounds good. The pandemic has interfered with my ability to work on this as I expected. I'll return to it whenever possible. Thanks again for your help with the edits. AnuBalasubramanian (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure AnuBalasubramanian. Stay safe :) Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 17:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]