Talk:Firefly/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 14:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll pick this one up. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Refs

 * While neither of these are sourcing something terribly contentious - what makes https://www.glowworms.org.uk and https://irecord.org.uk/enter-glow-worm-record reliable sources?
 * As you say, we're not in difficult terrain here. Both are nationwide surveys and both have been widely cited, in fact the survey of the first one is now run by the second, which is a national database.


 * I can't find ANYTHING on https://www.lampyridjournal.com... what makes it a reliable source?
 * It says "Participants from 13 countries met at the Second International Firefly Symposium in Selangor, Malaysia from 2nd to 5th August 2010. They included experts in the fields of taxonomy, genetics, biology, behaviour, ecology and conservation of fireflies", and the content is solidly academic. The sources are valuable as most work on fireflies has been in the western world.


 * The sources that aren't used in the references should be listed in a Further reading section.
 * Done.

Lead

 * "originated as an honest warning signal that" honest? Seems ... a strange way to word that
 * Linked honest signal.

Biology

 * What do the larvae usually feed on?
 * Snails and slugs; this is in the paragraph on larvae.


 * "Lampyrid larvae have simple eyes." is ... starkly out of place where it's situated. Can we have a bit more on any biology of the larvae and then start a new paragraph on the hibernation perhaps?
 * Rearranged, and paragraphed the section.


 * Suggest moving "The larvae of most species are specialized predators and feed on other larvae, terrestrial snails, and slugs. Some are so specialized that they have grooved mandibles that deliver digestive fluids directly to their prey." before "After several weeks of feeding on other insects, snails, and worms, they pupate for one to two and a half weeks and emerge as adults." Might move the eye bit into this section?
 * Edited paragraph.

Light and chemical production

 * "(called aninipot or totonbalagon in Bicol)" is this needed?
 * I think we can live without it. Gone.


 * link for "basal groups"?
 * Linked.

Fossil history

 * Link for "genomic analysis"?
 * Linked.


 * I did a light bit of copyediting, please make sure I didn't inadvertently change meaning or break something.
 * That's fine.


 * I'm ashamed to admit that even after chasing and admiring fireflies for many years, I did not realize they were beetles, so thank you for giving me my "newly learned thing" for the day!
 * Live and learn!


 * I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation - the things it's flagging are mirrors (one explicitly says so, the other appears to be a scrape of an older version of this article)
 * Noted.


 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , many thanks, I think I've addressed everything. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Those look fine. Passing now. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)