Talk:Halloween darter/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 20:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I hope there are plans to get this on the main page at the end of October... Happy to offer a review, but it will probably be bitty, as I'm reviewing in spare moments. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

J Milburn, thanks! It has already had a 5x expansion recently enough so the nom for DYK has happened :) It would still be great to have it be a GA in time for Halloween, though! And there's plenty more where that came from. Enwebb (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Cwmhiraeth as co-nom to ensure they're aware the review has started. Enwebb (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• "It is found in the Apalachicola River drainage and occurs in the Flint River system, Georgia, and the Chattahoochee River system, Alabama and Georgia" I struggled with this. Would the following be a fair rendering? "It is found in Georgia and Alabama in drainage basin of the Apalachicola River, specifically in the Flint River system and the Chattahoochee River system." It may not be - I may be misinterpreting what you're saying.

• Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• "gravel runs and riffles" Jargon

• Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm overreacting, but quotes (even in the lead) without references make me twitchy

• To which quote are you referring? If you mean the mentions of status, these are all cited in the main body of text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. My worry is that it's one thing to have material that's cited elsewhere; it's another thing to have quotes without citations. WP:WHYCITE explicitly notes that citations are needed for quotes. It's also mentioned in the "lead" of Wikipedia:Citing sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• It's not a quote. I put it in inverted commas to show that it's a technical term. In fact the words "vulnerable species" do not appear in the source, but "Vulnerable" does. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• So seems our options are: 1) Status quo, the material isn't truly a quote and shouldn't be treated like one; 2) remove the quotation marks. I frequently don't include them anyway in the lead when conveying IUCN and legal status; 3) Treat the material like a quote and duplicate the citations. I am not particular at all about which of these we go with. Enwebb (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Who described it? Who collected the holotype? Any information about phylogeny? All useful things to put in the taxonomy section, I think.
  • added content about descriptors and collectors. Not sure there are any publications about phylogenetic relationships, as it was only described pretty recently. Enwebb (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

    aaand there was a little bit, so I added a paragraph. Enwebb (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• It's bizarre to talk about distinguishing it from other members of the genus before offering
  • Not sure I would say it's bizarre, in the initial publication that's how it's structured: there's a "diagnosis" section followed by a "description" section (pg 30). Enwebb (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, fair enough, "bizarre" was a bit strong. I suppose this is a different genre to the article in which it is described. The authors there are trying to demonstrate that this is a distinct species; we're trying to provide the key information abut the species. I'm just imagining someone reading the article from top to bottom and thinking "Ok, the branchiostegal membranes are slightly connected... But what colour is it?" Josh Milburn (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Restructured this part (swapped the paragraphs) so that diagnosis content is after description content. Enwebb (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• What do the eggs look like, and where are they laid?

• Added where they are probably spawned. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing any sources on what the eggs look like, just their size. Enwebb (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Do you need a the in front of creek names? E.g., "the Uchee Creek" or simply "Uchee Creek"?

• The "the" looks right to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• I lack strong feelings either way about the use of definite articles here. Enwebb (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Have you tried emailing around for an image? Certainly not essential for GA purposes, but it would improve the article.
  • Sent an email today. Enwebb (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

That's all for now! Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

J Milburn I think we're about ready for another round of feedback. Enwebb (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Enwebb and Cwmhiraeth: Sorry about the delay. I've made some more edits; please double-check them. In the mean time, I think you are going to need to take a look at, and, if possible, incorporate some of the findings from, this article. I also think it would be help to add a little more on physical description into the lead; perhaps a bit more on colour, and something on size. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

J Milburn a bit confused by your edits in the phylogeny paragraph. I had that it was in a clade with ten other members of Percina (11 species total) and you changed it to being in a clade with nine other members of Percina and removed the blackbanded darter, which is part of the clade based on the cited source. Enwebb (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC) nvm I see where you moved blackbanded darter earlier in the section; I just saw it was no longer part of the list and thought it had been removed. Enwebb (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Great! This is looking really good. Another quick thought - certainly not a requirement, just a comment - I'd probably say that the fish head picture isn't adding much. A better picture might be the kind of river they live in (if we have one) or a closely related species (probably the blackbanded darter, if we have one). If you disagree, please discount. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

J Milburn, I've tweaked the images per your suggestions. Enwebb (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Average standard length of males; 100mm, or 101mm?

Other than that, I'm happy that this is ready for promotion to GA status. I've made a final few edits myself; please double-check them. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

J Milburn, I took another look at the cited text and my numbers were correct but phrasing was not. Those standard lengths were maximums for each sex, not averages. Glad I revisited! Enwebb (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify: In the lead, you say 100. In the article body, you say 101. I know it's not a big difference, but which is it? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

J Milburn, 101! Thanks for clarifying. The joys of collaboration is you forget which parts are where :) I wrote the description but Cwmhiraeth wrote most of the lead. Enwebb (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I rounded 101 mm to 100 in the lead because it is a summary of the article contents and 101 just seemed too precise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

J Milburn, anything else? Enwebb (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

No - I'm happy. Thanks for your patience. I'm going to promote now. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)