Talk:Snakefly

Snakefly has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 25, 2019. (Reviewed version).

Insects Mid‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Mid‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taxonomic levels confusion

In the Neuroptera article, Raphidioptera is said to be a suborder of the order Neuroptera, superorder Endopterygota. This articles places Raphidioptera as an order of the superorder Neuroptera. The Megaloptera article places the Megaloptera as an order of the superorder Edopterygota, but mentions in the text that it is sometimes considered to be a suborder of the Neuroptera. I think that we should settle for one classification (and include an explanation of the ongoing debate in the article). If no one has any objection I would like to make the change in this article so that it corresponds to the Neuroptera article. --IronC hris | (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, we learned it as a suborder of Neuroptera --Kugamazog 03:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. At least at present it is still taught in University settings as a subdivision of Neuroptera. There's nothing wrong with presenting the debate, but I would still use the older format. --Entoaggie09 11:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for all these reasons and more. --Stemonitis 10:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinal Categorization

Yes the page is currently sitting at a vernacular name for the group. However it is quite clear from the lead and subject matter that the article itself is on the Order Raphidioptera, and as such should be categorized as such. --Kev min § 23:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevmin, I'd like to invite you to join the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Categorizing taxa vs. common names. As you'll see there, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects#Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category supports what I'm doing, but you're also not the only one who wants to change that. If there's consensus for doing so, I'll abide by that decision, but in the meantime, I'd ask you to abide by the guidelines as they're written. I hope we can agree that "Snakefly" isn't the name of an order, at any rate. --BDD (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing per request of nominators; review has not been posted to by reviewer in over a month. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RecycledPixels (talk · contribs) 21:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking this on. Cwmhiraeth and I will address any comments promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will do this review over the next day or two. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ACK! I am SO SORRY! Short version is I screwed up and forgot that I promised to do this. If you want the long version I'll spill it out, but in the end, I am not going to be offended if you want to request another reviewer. But looking at my real-world schedule it is very likely that I will be able to return to this before the end of next week. Again, I am sorry for leaving this hanging. RecycledPixels (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry - we're both glad you're on the case. Looking forward to the review next week. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Inline citations are used. I have spot checked a few of the citations and found that the cited reference supports the text in the article. All references use the proper citation templates (cite web, cite book, cite journal, etc).
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All sources used in the article are reliable sources; mostly journals and books, a couple of reliable websites.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I have not detected any examples of original research in the article.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I have been able to find any instances of plagiarism, close paraphrasing, or copyright violations in the article. Any issues that I have detected were tracked back to other online sites copying the Wikipedia article, which has been around in some form since 2005.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article hits all of the major topics that I would expect to find about an insect- where does it live, what does it eat, what eats it, what does it look like, how does it fit into its ecological niche, interactions with humans. One fact I did not find in the description section is any mention of its size. Can you add a range of sizes of the snakeflies so the reader knows about how large or small they are? The lack of this fact does not rise to the level of not covering all of the main aspects of the topic, so GA criteria 3a still passes, but it would be very helpful to have in the article. Cwmhiraeth - would you like to take this one? Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good coverage and focus
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral, which is what I would pretty much expect with any article about an uncontroversial insect (unless it was written by an aphid)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article has been stable since its nomination aside from routine maintenance
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All of the included images are from commons. All but two are CC licenses, two are copyrighted images with permission to use if properly attributed, which is accomplished with the link to commons. AGF on the File:Oedomylus_sp_crop.jpg which was uploaded to Commons by one of this article's major contributors with a CC license, but not identified as own work, so unable to verify that. One concern I have is the File:Juroraphidia_longicollum.jpg image, which is on Commons with a CC-BY-SA license, but attributed to a 2014 journal. The website of that journal does not indicate that any of its content is freely licensed. The editor who uploaded it to commons has several talk page warnings about copyright violations, so I am worried about the true copyright status of this image. Can you comment about that? No problem. The 'Rights and Permissions' in the article state "This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited." So it's fine for us to use it. Updated the Commons page accordingly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Great. Thanks for clarifying. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Nice selection and balance of images, all relevant to the article
	7. Overall assessment.

Closing review

Per a request on my talk page, I am closing this effectively abandoned review (the reviewer has not returned in over a month), and putting the nomination back into the pool of GANs needing review. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Snakefly/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 02:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, happy to take this! Also it's been long since I worked with you two, Chiswick and Cwmhiraeth :D Sainsf (talk · contribs) 02:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the previous reviewer for diligently checking almost everything in the article except the prose quality, which is what my review will primarily focus on. Dablinks, copyvio, deadlinks - no issue detected. So here are my comments:

In the lead,

There is a line with an inline citation.. is the fact not covered elsewhere in the main text? Why add a ref in the lead?
Maybe wikilink thorax, ovipositor, larvae and pupae? I am not sure which of these would be too common in the context of this article, so I leave it to you.
...used to deposit eggs under bark or in some other concealed location and In most species, the larvae develop under the bark of trees - maybe "trees" is redundant, as it is excluded in the first mention? If you make changes here note the part in Ecology too.

Description:

by having an elongate prothorax elongated?
not the modified forelegs of the Mantispidae Maybe "mantis-flies" would be more reader-friendly? They won't have to look up the wikilink for clarification on what fly we are referring to
Maybe wikilink sclerotinised to sclerotin? Similarly costal
"elongated" is being used a bit too frequently... probably look for alternatives? Not a must though
that is present in Raphidiids Should it not be "raphidiids", just like you use lower case for inocelliids earlier?
Some of the short sentences can be combined into a few long ones, just my suggestion to improve the prose.

Distribution and habitat:

"rich in species" is probably more reader-friendly than "speciose"

Life cycle:

"instar" is linked twice
In rhaphidioptiids, mating takes place in a "dragging position", while in inoceliidads, the male adopts a tandem position under the female I am confused, what are rhaphidioptiids and inoceliidads? Different from raphidiids and inocelliids?
Convert template needed for 0 deg C

Ecology

Maybe wikilink territorial
raphidiidal species won't simply "raphidiid" work?
I feel the small predators and parasites section should really be included in this section.

Predators and parasites

Maybe wikilink "generalist"

Evolution

"relict" is a duplicate link
Use "mya" consistently
Engel 2002 with updates according to Bechly and Wolf-Schwenninger, 2011 and Ricardo Pérez-de la Fuente et al (2012) Use commas, brackets or both consistently while mentioning these references. If possible you may add a few words introducing the authors.

The rest looks fine to me. A really well-written, interesting article. Cheers! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing I noticed though, in the sources. I am not confident about the private "Mikko's Phylogeny Archive" source, especially with its homepage stating "Please, don't use this page as a scientific reference. This site is not peer-reviewed, and any alleged information contained herein may in fact represent whim, caprice, bias, speculation, ignorance, or simply typographical error, rather than science." Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on Sainsf. Chiswick Chap is away for a few days, so I will try to deal with your comments myself. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have dealt with all these points (apart from the Engel 2002 one), and I have replaced "Mikko's Phylogeny Archive" with better sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work :) I am happy to pass this article now. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]