Talk:Owlfly/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 18:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC) Many thanks as always, I'll respond promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• "Owlfly" is, in Google, much more common than "Ascalaphidae". Shouldn't his be the article title per WP:Common name? The article is mostly using "owlfly" in any case.
  • Agreed. Let's ask for it to be moved immediately after this GAN. We can't do it now as it tangles up the bot.

• Taxonbox: Late Jurassic–Recent should be linked.
  • Tried that, it breaks the gadget. The geological periods are however linked in the coloured timebar, e.g. "J" links to Jurassic.

• clubbed antennae; the latter have short – "the latter" seems to refer to "antennae" here, so repeat "dragonflies" instead?
  • Done.

• and different wing venation – can be specify? "reticulate wing venation"?
  • Done.

• 1.5 inches – It's a science article, we really want SI units here I think.
  • Converted.

• Adult Ululodinae such as Ululodes – state that this is a subfamily of owlflies?
  • Done.

• Owlflies are worldwide in distribution, occurring in temperate and tropical habitats. – Source?
  • Added.

• generally called owlflies. – Why "generally", so it isn't an exact synonym?
  • "Commonly".

• I miss the taxonomy section that other articles have. Taxonomic history? First description + citation? This could also be combined with etymology (of the common name, and what is the etymology of "Ascalaphidae"?). Or maybe a "taxonomy" could be combined with "Evolution"?
  • Added a note on these things, and the etymology, under 'Evolution'.

• abdomen, monophyletic, nuclear phylogenomic analysis, paraphyletic, mitochondrial rRNA and mitogenomic data – link?
  • Added.

• The abdomen in many crepuscular species is raised at rest, mimicking a broken twig – That contradicts "During the day, adults rest on stems and twigs with the body, legs, and antennae pressed to the stem"?
  • Fixed.

• Haploglenius luteus [nl] – To me, personally, it seems pointless to link to a Dutch WP article that is a stub of two sentences. Removing this would avoid a bit of clutter.
  • Unlinked.

• heliographic signalling – what is that?
  • Glossed.

• Mesascalaphus may be an entirely more basal member of the family – I don't understand the choice of words, why not simply "may be a basal member of the family"?
  • Done.

• fossil owlfly genera incertae sedis include Ascaloptynx, Borgia, Mesascalaphus, Neadelphus, Prosuhpalacsa, and Ricartus. – I wonder why you list fossil genera but not recent genera? That does not seem to be consistent (I personally don't think that this list helps a lot).
  • Removed.

• the Late Jurassic Mesascalaphus may be an entirely more basal member of the family, but it is now believed to be a member of Mesochrysopidae. – OK, but what, then, is the evidence for "dating back to the mid-Mesozoic at least"?
  • Well spotted. The evidence is for a Tertiary origin of the family. I've rewritten the section and added new refs.

• Cratopteryx from the Early Cretaceous is probably a member of the Myrmeleontoidea; sometimes assigned to the Ascalaphidae, it is better considered incertae sedis.[14] – This information seems a bit random, or are all Mesozoic genera mentioned? Some more general information about the Mesozoic fossil record would be great instead.
  • Removed.

• which recovered Ascalaphidae as a paraphyletic lineage within Myrmeleontidae; authors in that paper sunk Ascalaphidae into the Myrmeleontidae as subfamily Ascalaphinae – But that doesn't make it paraphyletic? I assume that some additional taxa were moved into Ascalaphidae/Ascalaphinae as well?
  • Yes, the Stilbopterygini and the Palparini, as you can see on the Machado tree at the top of 'Internal'. I've tweaked the wording.

• advanced groups – "derived"?
  • I'd think that'd be more obscure, not less; "derived" has multiple meanings, at variance with what lay people might imagine.

• Winterton et al – suggest "and colleagues" to avoid the technical term (which also lacks a dot)
  • Done.

• not representing clades – maybe add explanation like "(natural groups)" to help with understanding? And link "clades"?
  • Done.

• Phylogenetic analysis by Machado et al 2018 finds both "Myrmeleontidae" (underscored groups, "Myrm.") and "Ascalaphidae" paraphyletic with respect to each other, requiring a renaming of these taxa, – Isn't that the same study mentioned under "Phylogeny"? Maybe it can be removed there, then, to avoid content duplication and making it easier to follow.
  • Removed.

• Can you add the total number of species of the group? That would be nice to have in the lead as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Nice, all good, congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)