Talk:Insect wing/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: StringTheory11 (talk · contribs) 23:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. String Theory¹¹ 23:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: once the colors in the text are dealt with, I will review for content. The colors are too distracting to me to do a thorough review. String Theory¹¹ 03:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. I will review for content tomorrow. String Theory¹¹ 02:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed the article on hold until everything is dealt with. String Theory¹¹ 23:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enough has been done during this review that I feel the article qualifies for GA. A few sections in "adaptations" are a bit stubby, but that's something for FA. String Theory¹¹ 21:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some preliminary points to work on:

The colors in the text are quite distracting. Put them in the image captions instead.
- I removed most of the colored text from the paragraphs, but left the caption as I wasn't sure how you wanted them to be placed into the caption of the images. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 18:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article links to three disambig pages: naming, aptera, and clavus (disambiguation). These will need to be fixed.
- Taken care of, naming now redirects to its proper page, nomenclature, aptera was referring to the out of date taxon, and clavus now redirects to the definition I added to Glossary of entomology terms. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 06:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article has one recursive link in insect flight. Please fix this link.
- Fixed. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 18:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 12, 21, and 45 have dead links. Either fix the links or find new refs.
- I Didn't know what was wrong with 12. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 19:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 40's link appears to be broken. Either fix the link or find a new ref.
- I fixed this, there was a typo here when I placed the link. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 19:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at WP:BOLDFACE, and fix the text that requires fixing.
- I didn't see where would need to be fixed. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 16:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In general, the images in this article appear to be far too big. Try to keep the size below 400px, if possible.
- I fixed it so none are above 400px, my computer makes a lot of the pictures seem smaller than they actually are, If they are still too large, then tell me which ones.Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 05:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much better, although it looks like you missed one in the section odonata. My laptop is only a 13-inch, so some of the text appeared squished. String Theory¹¹ 03:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 35 has a redlink. Please remove this link.

More to come later. String Theory¹¹ 02:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced statements

The para in the section general needs a ref.
- I removed the section as the lead already generalize a lot of the information. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 16:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The second para in the section biochemistry needs a ref.
- Done. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 16:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are the first and second paras in the section governing equations all sourced from ref 14? If so, put the ref after each one.
- Yes, and done :) Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 16:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Similar deal with the third, fourth, and fifth paras in the section hovering.
- So it would be wise in the future to ref every section or paragraph even if the whole section is from the same source? and done. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 16:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Same idea with the second and third paras in the section power input.
- Muy bueno. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 16:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...And the section power output.
- Fixed. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 16:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...And the section elasticity.
- Good to go. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 16:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the table in the section theories sourced from ref 20? If so, the table should be referenced similar to the firs table in alkali metal (which I worked on, and was told to source the table like it is). The table in the section nomenclature needs the same treatment, as does the one in the section coleoptera.
- You mean the table under "Physical and atomic"? If so, you mean to place the ref after the appropriate information in the table? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 16:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Never mind this, actually. This is more of an FAC thing than a GAN thing. Sorry about that. String Theory¹¹ 02:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The second para of the section communication needs a ref.
- Done. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 19:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More to come later. String Theory¹¹ 03:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General tone, header

The level of detail and completeness of coverage here is wonderful, and there are some very interesting tidbits.

But I feel the comprehensibility and interest for a general reader suffers somewhat from all that detail. The header starts out well and the 4 images are great, but then it goes into too much detail, is almost all on morphology, and does not cover all sections with some main or interesting point. Technical terms are sometimes introduced before being explained (e.g. always give the common name at first use), and there are some internal inconsistencies (e.g., for the wing veins between image, summary, and text). - Dcrjsr (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I added a little more, but it still doesn't represent the article in its entirety. I'll have to get back to this one. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 16:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content

Morphology

The morphology section appears to be very thorough, although I would just remove the "general" section and have that info in the section lead.
- Done. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 16:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are some ^{[clarification needed]} tags in the "veins" section, which need to be dealt with.
- All as been clarified. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 16:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the "joints" section, there is some text in bold. Please make it italics instead.
- The bolding was purposed to match black lettering in the picture back when I was using the color indicators. So I just removed it from the paragraph. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 16:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since this section is impractically long and unlikely to be of interest to the average reader, I would recommend splitting it into a seperate article, Morphology of an insect wing or something similar. Not a requirement, but would be nice. Of course, an overview would stay in this article, but most of the text would be transferred there.
- I always assumed it was better for an article to be indept, and I don't know if it would be better to make such an specific article. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 16:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just look at metalloid, where they offloaded two sections to two other articles (that article was also getting impractically long, as is this one). I simply think it would be better for the layman who comes across the article while browsing. However, as I mentioned, this isn't a make-or-break thing, so you don't have to if you don't want. String Theory¹¹ 02:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Physiology

The second paragraph of "biochemistry" needs a ref.
- Done. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 16:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, some bolding problems here.
- Fixed. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 16:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the tables in "hovering", I would move the units into the header, rather than in the body.
- You mean to have them begin before any text begins? If so, that is what I did. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 16:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mean into the cells "wing speed" and "wing beats". Sorry if I was unclear here. String Theory¹¹ 02:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that this section and the Gliding portion of the article get moved to their own page. There is a wealth of information about the mechanics of insect flight that do not involve wing morphology and if this information were added to the page it would be off topic. I suggest a new page called "Insect Flight" be created and the information in these sections be transferred. — Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Gliding

There appears to be a whitespace issue here.

- Fixed, there was an image removed automatically and the space was left there. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 19:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

There is some bold text that will need to be italic
- Changed to italics. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 17:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know when insects first evolved?
- I didn't add that as it didn't seem relevant, should I contribute it to the text? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 17:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a spacing error in "fossils"
- I didn't notice anything out of the ordinary. Maybe you can elaborate the problem. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 17:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm, I don't seem to notice it now either. Maybe someone came by and fixed it. String Theory¹¹ 02:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More bolding issues in "theories"
- Fixed. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 17:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would move the table in "theories" to the right or left of the text, not in the middle.

- Alrighty then. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 17:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morphogenesis

All appears good here.

In nomenclature

I would remove this entire section, and move the table into a different section where it could fit. This simply doesn't deserve a section with the info it has.
- To what section do you think I should move it? Or would it be better to just add information so it can become a suitable section? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 18:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - IMO, either one would be fine. If you do decide to keep the section, however, I would retitle it to "Nomenclature", per WP:MoS. String Theory¹¹ 02:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptations

Very in-depth... This is quite a demanding read. No problems for GA here, although they will probably ask for a revamp in the FA process if you are intending to to there.