Talk:Afraflacilla braunsi/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 22:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'll pick this review up. Since it's fairly short I should have a review done in a couple of days. grungaloo (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I made an edit to fix a typo and add some URLs to the references. Please review when you have a chance and change any you disagree with.
 * Thank you. I have interleaved my responses with your comments.
 * General note on structure (not required for GA though) - Synonyms could be put under Taxonomy and Similar species could be put under Description. Most species related articles organize it this way.
 * I have made them subsections.
 * - Kind of sticks out in the lead, maybe try linking it into the sentence right before it ", although it is likely to have a wider distribution."
 * Reworded.
 * - Not sure if this belongs in the lead since A tripunctatus' relationship to A braunsi is only expanded on later on. As it's written in the lead the connection isn't clear and it sounds like you could be talking about a different species.
 * I have changed this to active voice so hopefully that is clearer.
 * - For the lead, I'd maybe be more explicit with "stridulate", saying something like "It makes noises by rubbing..."
 * Reworded.
 * - I'd reword to lead with "The genus Pseudicius was first circumscribed...". Otherwise at first this sounds like you're still talking about the species and not the genus.
 * Reworded.
 * Looks like this was missed.
 * I am confused. The phrase "genus Pseudicius" is in the text. I feel that is clear. I there something I am missing please?
 * - I'd drop this sentence, it's not clear what purpose it serves. Also, it's confusingly worded since it's not clear what the link between the primary and dependent clauses are (visual similarity and etymological differences?)
 * Both. I have removed the reference to the name and reworded it. Hopefully it is clearer.
 * - I'd try rewording this, specifically "very different DNA". This is kind of a loose qualifier.
 * Clarified.
 * - I'd drop "only recently" and just list the year.
 * Removed.
 * - I'd combine these two sentences, just the word "monotypic" in front of "tribe" in the first sentence.
 * Combined.
 * In the Synonyms section, I'd recommend using the short binomial name (eg P. braunsi) where possible. Lists of binomial names can be hard to parse for people not familiar with them and shortening the genus can help.
 * Changed. I have left the last sentence but otherwise altered every second and subsequent instance.
 * - Replace the second instance of "species" with P braunsi, otherwise it's hard to follow which species is a synonym of what.
 * Clarified.
 * - What species? Since you're starting a new paragraph you should be specific about the species.
 * Clarified.
 * - Bordering on too detailed (GACR 3b). It's not about the species in question and doesn't really add anything I think, I'd suggest removing it.
 * Removed.
 * - Confusing, probably unlikely to be broadly understood. I'd suggest rewriting to explain what "senior synonym" means (or add a footnote/wikilink).
 * Reworded and linked.
 * - Run-on sentence, needs a comma between "eye field" and "with".
 * Reworded.
 * Unfortunately still a run-on sentence. Needs a comma between "eye field" and "and black rings" because this is where the object changes. The first part, the object is "the eye field", and then after that a comma is needed because the object changes to "the eyes".
 * My understanding is that there is a need for a comma in a compound object with more than two objects linked by a coordinating conjunction, e.g. n is o1, o2 and o3, but not where there are two objects, e.g. n is o1 and o2.
 * - Comma needed after "sternum".
 * Added.
 * - I think you "have" needs to change to "had", since the genus has changed from Pseudicius.
 * Reworded.
 * - Last part, maybe misworded? "And for the morphology of its apophysis"?
 * Reworded.
 * - This should probably be moved to the Taxonomy section.
 * I have split the sentence to separate the founder (moved to taxonomy) and the location (in distribution).

Sources - Spot checked those that I have access to. Everything checks out, no sign of OR/SYN, AGF on those I can't access.

Hey, I'm done my review. No major issues so I'm confident this can make GA. Let me know if you have any questions or disagree with anything I've said. Feel free to reply to my comments inline. grungaloo (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thorough review. I believe I have made the changes you have highlighted needed doing. Please tell me if there is anything more. simongraham (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the changes. I've highlighted two that I think still need to be addressed. I also made two small edits, one to fix a typo and one to remove a duplicate wikilink. grungaloo (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your tweaks, especially removing the duplicate link. Please take a look at my comments above. simongraham (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * On another read through I agree with what you've said and I've struck those comments. I had to refresh myself on what a run on sentence was :). Everything else checks out, and I'm promoting this to GA. Thanks for your work and congrats! grungaloo (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)