Talk:Tetracanthagyna plagiata

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Illustration of a female T. plagiata

• ... that the giant hawker (pictured) is the largest living dragonfly, with a wingspan of 163 millimetres (6.4 in)? "Using wingspan as the means of comparison, the second largest odonate appears to be the gigantic Anisopteran Tetracanthagyna plagiata female known from Peninsula Malaysia and Borneo (see Fig. 2). This insect has a wingspan measuring up to 163 mm and 100 mm in total body length." Dragonfly Giants by Keith D.P. Wilson of the World Dragonfly Association "T. plagiata (Waterhouse, 1877) is generally considered the heaviest living adonate (Tillyard 1917) and in wingspan the female is exceeded only by the slightly built, giant, neotropical zygopteran, Megaloprepus coerulatus (Drury, 1782) of the Pseudostigmatidae (Wilson 2009)." The larva of Tetracanthagyna plagiata, with notes on its biology and comparisons with congeneric species (Odonata: Aeshnidae) Orr et al. in the International Journal of Odonatology
  • ALT1: ... that the giant hawker (pictured) is the heaviest of all Odonates? "However, female Tetracanthagyna plagiata is reckoned to be the heaviest of all living Odonata (Tillyard, 1917)." ENCOUNTERS WITH TETRACANTHAGYNA PLAGIATA (WATERHOUSE) IN SINGAPORE, WITH AN OBSERVATION OF OVIPOSITION Leong & Tay in NATURE OF SINGAPORE "T. plagiata (Waterhouse, 1877) is generally considered the heaviest living adonate (Tillyard 1917) and in wingspan the female is exceeded only by the slightly built, giant, neotropical zygopteran, Megaloprepus coerulatus (Drury, 1782) of the Pseudostigmatidae (Wilson 2009)." The larva of Tetracanthagyna plagiata, with notes on its biology and comparisons with congeneric species (Odonata: Aeshnidae) Orr et al. in the International Journal of Odonatology

• Reviewed: Siamés
• Comment: Moved to mainspace on 21 November 2021. Note for those reading the first source that the first largest Odonate is a Zygopteran (damselfly), namely Megaloprepus coerulatus, putting T. plagiata as the largest Anisopteran (dragonfly). I would really like the image to be used by DYK and put at the first slot if possible! ALT0 is preferred. (bolded for emphasis heh) Thank you for your consideration!

Moved to mainspace by Ornithoptera (talk) at 07:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC).

• @Ornithoptera: My apologies for the length of this review. Nominated for DYK five days after being moved to main namespace, and is over 8400, easily satisfying length and date criteria. I will assume good faith for the refs I cannot access (ref 5 - World Catalogue of Odonata; and ref 12 - The dragonflies (Odonata) of Singapore). In the distribution section, the first paragraph mentions T. plagiata is found in Thailand, and the end of the second paragraph states it "has been additionally recorded in Thailand", which seems redundant. The same can be said for the closing sentences of the "life history" and "habitat" sections. In the last paragraph in "Threats and conservation", "He additionally stated..." does not refer to the previously mentioned Y. Norma-Rashid, but D.H. Murphy, who was mentioned even earlier in the paragraph, so this needs tweaking to ensure the statement is properly attributed. The text states "...which were adapted for grasping prey...", but the source does not mention prey (it could be adapted for grasping a perch, for example). Although there's no copyvio per se, there does appear to be some similarity between text and source, such as these two examples:

• [Article]: "...prementum was robust and had distal expansion with thin and hook like labial palps, serrated along the inner margins"
• [Source]: "...prementum robust and expanded distally with labial palps thin and hook-like, serrate along their inner margins"
• [Article]: "The stream itself was filled with organic matter such as leaf litter and fallen branches.
• [Source]: "The stream was filled with debris such as leaf litter and fallen branches."

• I realize that with such terse source, there can be some overlap of this sort, but there are quite a few instances in this article.
• Please use page numbers for citations, for example with {{rp}}. Searching for details in refs, particularly the longer ones, is quite cumbersome without having some way to narrow the range of text to search. I spent far too much time doing this. You can also remove citations from the intro, as all that text summarizes the remaining article, all of which already has the necessary citations.
• The image is an illustration of the subject that is suitable and clear at the size required for DYK. It has been freely licenced by the uploader. My only concern is that this is that user's only contribution to Commons, which piques my curiosity. Tineye reports no online copies of this image. The hooks are fine and sourced, though I'm curious if they should be qualified with 'females'; the article doesn't seem to mention if the males also exceed the size of other species. QPQ completed. Mindmatrix 02:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hello @Mindmatrix:! Don't worry about the length of the review itself, all it shows me is that you put your time and care into it and that really does matter to me! I'll try to address your concerns in the review in itself, and if there continues to be issues please do inform me. I'll use your review as a guide for my editing. I have never used page numbers in my citations, and this is a fairly new thing for me to have come across, so I'll try and be vigilant next time. Forgive me though, just new to all of this, I haven't encountered it enough within my history editing Wikipedia articles. Regarding the image though, the illustration was made by one of my friends who offered to draw it for the article. Since they had no Wikipedia account, I requested that they make one, since I was uncertain of how to go about properly crediting them if I were to upload the image myself. Its a bit of a strange predicament, but I hope you understand! I'll try and address your concerns in the next few edits hopefully tonight so it can be up to snuff! Ornithoptera (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• I can confirm Ornithoptera's statement that I created an account to add the image I created to the article. Ornithoptera being my friend, suggested that I provide art for Wikipedia articles with this article being the first. We found this the easiest way to add my art without having to worry about crediting me. Splendidsponges (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Splendidsponges: I will assume good faith that this is your own work. Thanks for creating and uploading it. Mindmatrix 22:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Ornithoptera: I see that you have fixed the issues regarding duplication of Thailand, the attribution to Murphy, the issue about grasping, and the phrasing issue for the second example I noted above. In addition to the first example I noted (I'll write about this in a subsequent comment), there is still the duplication with the last sentences in the "life history" and "habitat" sections that still needs resolution. Mindmatrix 22:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Hello again @Mindmatrix:! Glad to see you again and thank you for your suggestions. I must have misread your earlier comments, and assumed that there was an issue with the phrasing of "primary and secondary forests" rather than the fact I erroneously duplicated the point within the article! I just rectified that and placed it in the "Habitat" section now. Thank you for your help! Ornithoptera (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Hey @Mindmatrix:, I did several of the suggested edits, however I am a bit uncertain about how to go forward with some of the suggestions and thus I am writing to get a clear idea of areas to address and to alleviate some of my confusions on what to do. The first example I really am struggling to word it in a way that would not be similar to the source, I am not familiar enough with larval Anisopteran anatomy and the related terminology to accurately provide an alternative description that would be both relevant and accurate. I am also uncertain due to the fact that the issue seems to be present within the article but rewording those two examples would probably not be enough to get it through, since I myself did not deliberately put those similarities in, and thus I'm not sure which areas would be of concern, so further clarity would be helpful? Another question I had was regarding if the suggestion for page numbers was for the future or to be implemented within the article for the issue to be properly addressed, with such a lengthy article it would be a bit of work for someone who has never properly utilized the feature before. I also wanted to state that I'm unsure why the aspect of adults' habitat is considered a redundancy, as motile adults can venture outside of their aquatic habitats and thus inhabit different areas. Regardless, I do appreciate the in-depth feedback, its a bit overwhelming in all honesty, but if there is a roadmap on what I should do next I would dearly appreciate that. A roadmap would mostly be helpful because there is a lot of concerns within the article that I don't exactly know how to tackle personally bit by bit, and knowing for sure what I need to do before it can be approved for DYK is a good idea. I understand that it is not your job but anything would be helpful because there is a lot to be addressed here, and hopefully it can be. Thank you so much for all your time and effort put into this! Ornithoptera (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Ornithoptera: - this is just a quick note to say I haven't forgotten this review, and I'll probably get back to it later in the week or upcoming weekend. Mindmatrix 01:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Phew! That's a huge relief, I was mulling over whether to ping you again to ask if you were doing okay! I rectified the concern you had regarding the duplication by the way! Very glad to hear you haven't forgotten and I hope to hear from you soon! Ornithoptera (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Ornithoptera: I've added page numbers for you, and rephrased some sentences (I did not change meaning, though I did correct an error stating wing length instead of wingspan), including the one mentioned above. I've also replaced measurements to use {{convert}}. As I said earlier, the hooks are fine, but I think they're dull and you're missing far more interesting hooks. What do you think of ALT2? (How often will the chance to put "ballistic defecation" on the front page occur?) Mindmatrix 17:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• ALT2 ... that the larva of Tetracanthagyna plagiata exhibit ballistic defecation to avoid detection?

• @Mindmatrix:, hey! So glad you could get back to me! I'm preferential to the moniker of "the largest living dragonfly" as the DYK hook, but I have to admit that I want to include it, could we go along with something like this, as a compromise? Thank you again for your help!: Ornithoptera (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• ALT3 ... that the giant hawker (pictured), the largest living dragonfly, with a wingspan of 163 millimetres (6.4 in), has larvae who exhibit ballistic defecation?

• ALT3 is sourced, and at 152 characters satisfies the hook length criterion. (I would substitute 'extant' for 'living' and 'that' for 'who'.) I'll leave it to the promoter to determine which hook to use; if it is ALT2, it will require someone else to review it. Mindmatrix 02:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  Hey, Ornithoptera! Quick note about DYK crediting: Even though Artem G. is the one who technically moved the article into mainspace, their contributions to the article are minimal. When a page is moved from draft, we go by author of the draft, not the page mover—you put in all of the work that made it eligible for DYK, after all. Anyways, I've adjusted the credits. Cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Tweaked ALT3 to T:DYK/P2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 10:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll have a go at this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• After the GAN has completed, the article should be moved to "Giant hawker" per WP:COMMONNAME.
  • I would be a bit hesitant to rename it to Giant hawker given that most sources tend to use both names in tandem, its a somewhat uncommon dragonfly as well which gives me further cause for keeping the name as is, as most sources tend to refer to it using the scientific name. Ornithoptera (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Hm, "Giant hawker" gets over 6,000 hits, whereas the other name gets just 6, so I think COMMONNAME does apply.
      • Genuinely curious as to the methodology used to get this figure (google perhaps?) as searching up "giant hawker" in quotations there gets you a lot of unrelated search terms from the area (hawkers are food stalls as well, so it leads to some confusion). Just want to make sure everything checks out. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Please let's not argue; live issues remain on the page. A google search for the combination "giant hawker" (in double quotes) with "dragonfly" (also in double quotes) gets over 3500 hits, so I think the finding is robust.
          • I really hope I'm not coming off argumentative, I was more genuinely curious as to how you got the information. All of my comments I try to do in good faith. Clarity is important after all! I think this is a fair proposal keeping that in mind. Ornithoptera (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• It's certainly a great pity that we don't have a photograph. I couldn't find a CC-by-SA photo, however. Maybe we can ask for one on the talk page. (not a GA criterion)

There are CC0 photos on commons.Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 01:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• " Robert McLachlan described that his peer Edmond de Sélys Longchamps proposed the separation..." - needs rewording. "Described" in this context generally means "wrote the first formal description of", so let's limit its use to that here.
  • Changed "described" to "commented". Ornithoptera (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• McLachlan is overlinked, as are Aeshnidae, Borneo (repeatedly), Sumatra, Singapore (repeatedly), Tetracanthagyna and Tetracanthagyna waterhousei.
  • Removed overlinked subjects as per your recommendation. Ornithoptera (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oreillets is linked to the mammalian ear, which doesn't help.
  • Not entirely sure as to what "oreillets" meant in the author's original context, should I put that as simply "oreillets" without any linking? I'm not entirely certain on Odonate anatomy so I'm not sure what it means in this context. Ornithoptera (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Well if we're using the term we'd best know what it means and explain it to the reader; but the link is definitely unhelpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Read up on dragonfly anatomy using this source, The Dragonflies of Europe, seems like it doesn't have a Wikipedia page. I'll link it and elaborate on it a bit in the page. The source describes it as "small lobes on the second abdominal segment in males" and specifically uses Fraser as the source for the term. Ornithoptera (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
        • That sounds exactly right.
• The use of the "rp" template to put actual page numbers into the main text, specially for mere 5-page papers (refs by Leong and Fraser), is undue and untidy; let's remove them.
  • Done! Ornithoptera (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks, could you do the same for the remaining uses of "rp". All the papers cited should have page ranges, i.e. if you're citing a paper's page 123, it's sufficient to put "|pages=121–129" or whatever in the citation. This differs from books (unless the papers are approaching book-length) where you need to cite the exact pages used.
• Is "upwards of 163 millimeters" about wingspan, as it appears? - best say so.
  • Done! Ornithoptera (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not sure the hindwing lengths are compatible with the wingspans given? The wings begin a little distance apart on the thorax, and are held nearly straight out (ok, there might be a cosine in their if they're held at a slight angle), so the hind-wingspan looks to be at least twice the hindwing length; and the forewings look to be longer than the hindwings. If the hindwings are as stated up to 84 or 86mm, that'd mean a (female, presumably) hind-wingspan of 168 to 172 mm, no? I think a table or graphic (simple diagram of 2 hindwings with various lengths added as text labels, plus double-those-lengths to give wingspan estimates) would make things a bit clearer.
• The four entries in 'See also' about wingspan/wing area need to be integrated into the main text (two of them are even cited!) as they are evidently part of the 'Is this the largest Odonate?' discussion. I think that needs to be a section of its own. Actually the current "Description" section is nearly all about that subject already, so there is a need for a separate "Description" which actually describes at least the adults (how do males and females differ, apart from size?) and arguably the larva also.
• I suggest the "Largest odonate" section should have a table (or more than one) comparing the available data; at the moment it's a bit chaotic really.
  • Most of this addresses the same topic so I'll just reply to here instead of writing three separate comments, I'm not entirely sure as to how to set up a table or what it may look like. There is already a clear vision set up but I don't entirely understand its implementation within the article. You are totally welcome to provide one if that is allowed, maybe in this talk page, but my qualms is simply that I am reiterating source material, so extrapolating wingspan from these sources would be a bit iffy to me. Regarding the "Description", this is the most I could discern regarding the sexual dimorphism (in addition to wing patterning) and other descriptions of the dragonfly's appearance citing various sources on the topic. Most sources on T. plagiata discuss the lifespan (which is why the section is quite dense hah). The "see also" section being linked was just my suggestion on other pages to look at but I wasn't aware it wasn't a good idea to source them, so I'll remove those. Ornithoptera (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    • The description will outline the apppearance and coloration of the adults and their distinctive features, as any dragonfly book would do. Take a look at Australian emperor#Description for a typical example. The current section looks nothing like that.
      • @Ornithoptera: - As you've used this for the male, why don't you also use this for the female? That would beef up the Description to something much more acceptable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I'll try and go through the source tomorrow, sorry for the delay by the way. University is about to start up again for me and I have been trying to juggle both the best I can. In the meantime let me know of any other spaces to improve! Ornithoptera (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
          • It's basically the only remaining issue of concern.
            • @Chiswick Chap: It should be done now! Please let me know if there are any other concerns! Ornithoptera (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
              • Yes, that works a whole lot better, thanks.

I forgot to say, but I wish you happy new year! It's great to work with you again Chiswick Chap, hope this review goes smoothly! Thank you for taking the time to review this article! Ornithoptera (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your hard work and advice regarding this article and getting it to good article status! I look forward to working with you more in the future! Ornithoptera (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• "Dorrington (2012)" needs a citation.

• "Dorrington (2012)" is "On flying insect size and Phanerozoic atmospheric oxygen" (Citation 21), unless you mean something different, I may be misreading? Ornithoptera (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Malay World and areas influenced by Malay culture map.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)