Talk:Macrobdella decora/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 19:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in tackling this review. Anonymous 19:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking it on! Cremastra (u — c) 19:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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):
The spelling and grammar seem good. I have some layout advice.
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
The references look fine. I spot checked 1e, 14a, 17, 18, and 8b. I have some comments based on these checks below. Nothing appears to be OR, and Earwig detects no copyvios.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I think the coverage could be expanded. Specifically, sections for "Conservation status" and "Relationship with humans" would be very beneficial.
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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The images all are appropriate in terms of relevance and copyright.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Here's my commentary:

The lead could easily be condensed into two paragraphs, if not one. Done
It's completely optional, as we're still woefully lacking in terms of formal layout guidelines, but my personal preference would be for the classification section to be renamed "Taxonomy" and placed as the first section, as this seems to generally be the most common style for animal articles, especially at the species level.
- Since it's "completely optional", I'll politely decline to do this, since my gut feeling is that if it was just "light" etymology and taxonomic history, it could go to the front, but since it gets slightly more in depth into genetics and phylogeny, it shouldn't come before the description section. I'll retitle it, though.
I noticed a peer review recommended a conservation status section, which does not currently appear to exist.
- I've made "conservation" a subsection of "interactions with humans", but there's very little information out there.
The sources include quite a lot of valuable information about how humans have used them. Consider creating a "Relationship with humans" section at the end. Ref 14 provides detail about their use as bait. Done
All leeches have 32 segments, but they are also covered with annuli This sentence makes it unclear who and/or what part of them are covered with annuli. All leeches? Just this one? Specifically on its segments? Annuli should also be defined. Done
Perhaps define "gonopore" and "panmictic". Done
Curiously, the gut microbiome of the North American Macrobdella decora is quite similar to that of Europe's Hirudo verbana. "Curiously" shouldn't be in wikivoice. If you can quote or paraphrase someone who described this as curious, that would be fine. Done
The fact that the cladogram does not include its sister species seems odd. Done
I would very highly recommend including a map. Done
Its NatureServe status of unranked can go in the infobox. Done
The Wikipedia Commons link belongs in an external link section, rather than "See also". Done
The leeches may be panmictic across their range. A spot check of ref 14 indicates there is more to be said here; it names a few populations that are not believed to be panmictic at all and then clarifies that more research is needed for the rest. Done
In general, M. decora is not believed to be endangered. The source does not seem to sufficiently indicate that this belief as "general"; perhaps it would be better to say that it "has been described as not endangered" and attribute the source. Done
Ref 8b passed its spot check, but it stands out as lacking page numbers, unlike many other references, especially given that it's quite a lengthy source. Done

As you can see, I was able to come up with some areas for improvement, but it's a good start. Good luck! Let me know if you would like any help. Anonymous 01:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the feedback; I've marked a few as done. Cremastra (u — c) 02:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:An anonymous username, not my real name, any further concerns with the article or the changes I've made? Cremastra (u — c) 15:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make it clear that the vast majority of animal articles, including those that go far more in-depth in terms of phylogeny than this one does, are styled in the way I suggested. See lion, tiger, and jaguar, which are all featured articles and all provide great evolutionary detail. Also, the section does not appear to have actually been retitled. As one last note, the usage of quoted text could probably be cut back somewhat. Otherwise, it's about ready to pass. Anonymous 17:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, I'll move the section. I'll also see if I can cut back the quoted text. Cremastra (u — c) 17:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@An anonymous username, not my real name

Done and thank you for a very speedy review.Cremastra (u — c) 17:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It looks amazing, especially for your first good article. I very much agree with your decisions on where to remove quotes, and I especially agree that the "torturously folded" quotation should be kept. I am passing the article now. Anonymous 17:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you very much! I believe this is also the first leech species GA, so thank you. Cremastra (u — c) 17:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]