Talk:Drosophila subobscura/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 08:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the long wait. This is an interesting article and a good read. I have a longer list of smaller points. Since the nomination is already a month old, a brief note that you are still available to address the comments would be much appreciated. Thanks, Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Totally okay! I appreciate your interest in my article. I am still very much available to address the comments you have. Thank you! andrewoh29 (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello -- just checking in again. I'm happy to work towards the comments/edits you have for my article. Please feel free to provide your feedback so that I can get started on the process! Thanks a lot! andrewoh29 (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * These three species form the paraphyletic subobscura species subgroup. – The statement that it is paraphyletic is not found in the main text. All information given in the lead (which is a summary) should appear in the main body also.


 * I suggest to link terms like "paraphyletic" and "model organism" for maximum accessibility.


 * Wild type D. subobscura are brown – Does this mean there are cultivated ones (and that these are different in appearance)? Would mention this beforehand.


 * brown dorsum, tergites, tarsal, carina, pollinosity, reclinate, proclinate, tibial, inversions recombination-suppression effects – can you link and/or explain in a gloss?


 * The eggs are smaller than that of – "those of"?


 * than that of D. obscura – Probably better to introduce this species first (e.g., the "that of the closely related D. obscura" should already be sufficient).


 * The eggs are smaller than that of D. obscura by about half the length of the egg itself. – Can this be much more concise (e.g., "The eggs are only half the length of those of D. obscura") or am I missing something?


 * The species has a brown antenna with grey pollinose and is relatively the same color as the rest of the head-capsule. – "and is" -> "that is"? "relatively" -> "approximately"?


 * I miss information on the size. How long? Is there sexual size dimorphism as in D. melanogaster?


 * The arista of D. subobscura contain 6-8 branches – to improve accessibility, it helps a lot to explain technical terms. Here, what about "The arista (bristles arising from the antennae) of D. subobscura contain …" or something similar?


 * Is it possible to add how this species can be differentiated from other fruit flies? Can the species be identified based on external features (e.g., based on photographs)?


 * Here, one paper that resulted from this experimental work called to the species as D. subobscura and was referred to as such therein. – Not completely clear. The mentioned paper is not the original one by Collin, but a second one using Collins Manuscript name, if I understood correctly? Is "and was referred to as such therein" redundant to "called to the species"?


 * Two years after Gordon's paper – hard to understand what year this should be now, since the year of Gordon's paper was not given either (only says "approximately three years later"). Of course one can calculate, but I would add the year directly.


 * Consider merging "Discovery" and "Taxonomy and phylogenetic relationships" under a single caption "Taxonomy", and have it as the very first section (with the "Discovery" paragraph as the first). This would be consistent with other species articles in Wikipedia, where this structure is standard (but not a fixed rule, if you don't like it please leave as is).


 * : this should be most of it, more later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for you suggestions. I made the edits accordingly. Please let me know what else I can do in this process. andrewoh29 (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for these fixes. Lets continue:


 * Its closest relative is Drosophila madeirensis, found in the Madeira Islands, followed by D. guanche, found in the Canary Islands. These three species form the paraphyletic subobscura species subgroup. – I do not quite understand how this group can be paraphyletic when these three species are more closely related to each other than to any other species?
 * "proclinate" link does not work (website not found). Better avoid linking external websites. Link to the Wiktionary (proclinate), see also the glossary (Glossary of entomology terms).
 * "Tibia" now links to the bone in vertebrates. Better link to tibia.
 * The last thing standing in the way is article structure. According Manual_of_Style/Layout, very short sections and very short paragraphs should be avoided as they lead to a cluttered layout. I think that some headings can be dropped. If you feel strongly about it you don't need to be as radical as I suggest, though I recommend to try it out, it really makes a difference. To get an impression of what I mean, see also Wikipedia's Featured Articles (WP:FA) as examples.
 * Sections "Name validation" belongs logically within "Taxonomy". I suggest to merge the content of "Name validation" with "Taxonomy" to have a chronological, coherent text; I would drop the heading "Name validation" completely.
 * Headings "Colonization in the Americas", "Lack of habitat choice" could be dropped.
 * In most instances, single-sentence paragraphs can be merged by just removing line breaks.
 * I also suggest to remove line breaks in the lead. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. I have made the fixes. andrewoh29 (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Great, good work. Promoted now, congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate that! Thank you for your edits. They were incredibly helpful. andrewoh29 (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)