Talk:Urceolus

Article length
, I noticed you nominated this for GA but the article only has a length of about 400 words, much shorter than the usual length of a GA. I was wondering if you wanted to say a little bit about why the article is so brief, which might make another reviewer more comfortable with giving it a full look. I have nothing against short GAs (in fact, I think we have a dearth of GAs on brief topics), but I was surprised when I clicked on the article and saw its brevity. Thanks! Fritzmann (message me) 17:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Fritzmann2002 For sure, I definitely would think the same thing if I were to review this article. Basically, I spent weeks trying to gather more information referring to this genus than what is already in the article, but all I found were records of its presence in various geographical regions. The only outcome I can think of is adding specific info about each species, perhaps as a small description of each within the species list, like I did at Apodera... would that be appropriate? I will still go back to the used literature and try to juice more information out. —  Snoteleks  ( talk ) 18:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think a brief overview of the species' taxonomy and what makes them different would be a good addition; perhaps a short paragraph for each. Fritzmann (message me) 13:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also is there any information about the synonym Phialonema? I know it's mentioned in the note as a junior synonym, but saying who described it as such in the body may be worthwhile. Fritzmann (message me) 14:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I added the bare minimum of information about Phialonema. I hope to gather more soon, but it takes a while for my computer to load 19th century works. —  Snoteleks  ( talk ) 16:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , if you look into the above points I'd be happy to review the article around this weekend! Fritzmann (message me) 19:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For sure, I will try to get to it before the weekend. Sorry for the late response, I'm approaching important academic deadlines. —  Snoteleks  ( talk ) 18:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I too considered reviewing this, but its brevity turned me off. So here's some completely unsolicited suggestions for expansion (to add to Fritzmann's above):
 * what did Mereschkowsky say about the taxon in his protologue?
 * where was the type collected?
 * what does Urceolus mean?
 * what do these things eat? How do they eat them?
 * size?
 * how is this genus distinguished from similar genera, like e.g. Chasmostoma?
 * the 2 generic synonyms could/should be mentioned in the text.
 * In classification, is there anything to more say about why the classification changed? Esculenta (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * +1 to all of 's comments, I think if even half of them are able to be found the length of the article would probably jump by 200+ words. Fritzmann (message me) 11:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Esculenta @Fritzmann2002 thank you both for the motivation. I have started squeezing more information out of very old sources. Will update as soon as I can. —  Snoteleks  ( talk ) 16:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Esculenta @Fritzmann2002 I have updated much of the article following your advice. Would it satisfy a GA now? —  Snoteleks  ( talk ) 22:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nice work! I would now not shy away from reviewing this due to brevity, and, if it's still in the queue, may do so when my pending reviewing commitments have concluded. Esculenta (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * All of the things I would want to see added have been! I'll actually start a review right now;, feel free to leave comments as well whenever you get a chance. Fritzmann (message me) 17:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)