Jump to content

Talk:Caccothryptus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Caccothryptus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 23:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 03:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I'll take this review. Will have comments here within a few days. Esculenta (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The genus was first described by entomologist David Sharp" technically, a genus is not "first described", it is circumscribed. Since this is somewhat jargony, maybe consider adding "formally established (circumscribed)" to bridge the terminology gap. Also, I don't know how you feel about false titles, but this is an example of one (later on in the article too).
    • Thank you - tweaked wording to account for this and remove false titles. - G
  • "Discoveries in the following years has have brought the total number of species up to at thirty-five."
    • Fixed. - G
  • "the beetles have ovloid bodies" -> Likely meant to be 'ovoid' or 'obovoid'?
    • Fixed. - G
  • the "synonyms_ref" parameter in the taxobox should have an entry to cite the listed synonym
    • Fixed. - G
  • Not sure why "Range" is a subsection of "Description"
    • Seperated. - G
  • aedaegus -> aedeagus
    • Corrected. - G
  • this sentence is a bit dense "All Caccothryptus species have a non-articulated aedeagus, while their parameres can be either separated or fused—while this can vary even within a species group, all species of compactus and testudo have separated parameres."; the double use of "while" could be rephrased for flow
    • Fixed. - G
  • possibly useful links: larvae, pupae, type species, synonym, denticle, sexual dimorphism
    • Added. - G
  • "Within Limnichinae, Caccothryptus belongs to the "Mandersia group" of genera, alongside the much smaller" smaller how? # of species in genus, or body size?
    • Clarified. - G
  • maybe have a gloss for jargon word pronotum (e.g. "the dorsal plate of the thorax") or similar
    • Added. - G
  • very minor nitpick, but you could have the link to the protologue go directly to the correct page
    • Fixed. - g
  • although Sharp did not specify an etymology, the roots of the name can be analyzed: Cacco- (κάκκος or κακός in Greek) means 'bad' or 'evil,' and -thryptus (θρυπτός, from Greek θρύπτω) means 'broken' or 'fragile.' These meanings could be included, with attribution.
    • -thryptus wasn't too hard, but I could also find definitions for "cacco-" that mean "fecal" ( see Donald J. Borror's Dictionary of Word Roots and Combining Forms, pp 19-20); so I'm unsure which one Sharp actually meant. - G
  • "and are most often collected using light traps." I don't see this fact in the cited source
    • From checking its usage in other papers, "Collected at light" means "collected via a light trap" - G
  • (not GA) "In 1922 and 1923, Maurice Pic described a new genus" it might be useful for some readers to be able to access these citations, which are listed as sources in Hernando & Ribera (and the 1922 volume is available at BHL)
    • Added the 1922 volume. - G
  • "In terms of species count, Caccothryptus is among the largest genre" italics & genre->genera
    • Fixed. - G
  • if this were FAC, I'd complain about a genus article not having a full species list (by "full" I mean a list of species with authorities, year of publication, and maybe distribution; that way one can cite the protologue citations with the species, making it easier for readers to get info about a certain species, even if an article hasn't yet been written), but for GA it's good enough
    • I was considering that, but wouldn't that result in an excessively long table for the 35 entries? It might work better as a separate article (List of Caccothryptus species)
Though then again the base article is short enough it could definitely accomodate such a list. I guess I might add it when/if I take this to FAC. - G
  • "The underside of the abdomens (ventrum) has deep depressions" plural/singular clash with "abdomens"/"ventrum"/"has"
    • Fixed. - G
  • "have long ovipositors and gonocoxites (a structure…)" plural/singular
    • Fixed. - G
  • "Caccothryptus species can be distinguished from most other genera in the Mandersia group due to their lack of oblique frontal sulci on their heads." oblique = jargon version of "slanted"
    • Reworded. - G
  • "longitudinally-divided region" adverbs ending in -ly should not be hyphenated to the adjectives they modify
    • Fixed. -G
  • "Caccothryptus species are mainly within the Indomalayan or Oriental biogeographic realm" Historically, "Oriental realm" was used in biogeography, but it has been largely replaced by "Indomalayan realm" in modern scientific literature and classifications (e.g., WWF and Udvardy’s biogeographic system)
    • Removed. -G
  • "Many species are known from a single location, although some have been found across a wide swath of territory; most notably among these is C. maculosus, with a range that encompasses Mainland Southeast Asia plus Hainan, portions of Indonesia, and the Andaman Islands." subject/verb agreement issue
    • Fixed. - G
  • Images: the single image used was extracted from a (CC BY 4.0) publication, so is fine.
  • Spot checks: I performed spot checks on five of the sources, and other than the one instance noted above, didn't find issues with supporting content, or paraphrasing. All sources are academic & reliable.

Overall, the article is pretty close to GA, and the suggested changes are minor, so I'm placing this review on hold. Esculenta (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Esculenta: Okay! I think I got to everything. Thank you very much. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I made a few copyedits; please check. I noticed that there's a repeated mention of C. chayuensis in two of the species groups, so I'll leave that for you to fix while I promote this to GA. Cheers, 20:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC) Esculenta (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 17:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that the species of the beetle genus Caccothryptus are mainly distinguished by their genitals?
  • Source: Hernando & Ribera 2014, pp. 281, 303–304. Hernando, Carles; Ribera, Ignacio (2014). "Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Caccothryptus Sharp (Coleoptera: Limnichidae)" (PDF). Koleopterologische Rundschau. 84. ISSN 0075-6547.
Improved to Good Article status by Generalissima (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 112 past nominations.

Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Long enough, GA-ed recently enough (we'll call it a baker's seven days), QPQ looks fine. No image, only one in the article is CC BY 4.0. Article is neutral, well-sourced, no other glaring issues. I spotchecked against Hernando & Ribera 2014 and 2017, and Sharp for copyvio and source-text integrity. No major issues, though my fact checking turned up a possible misstatement: I'm correct in my reading that Sharp compared Caccothryptus as a whole, not just C. compactus, to Euthryptus? For ease of reference, the book says "This genus has an extreme resemblance in appearance and in most of its characters to the Central American Enthryptus" while the article says "He described the species as the "largest and most remarkable of the Limnichini" and noted their close resemblance to the Central American genus Euthryptus".
    Hook is interesting - though I just want to ask two questions. The paper says "based on external and genital characters" (pg 281) and that the authors justified the classification of new species, despite the limited sample size, due to "differences both in external morphology and the male genitalia" (pg 303). These distinctions obviously appear mostly reliant on differences in the aedeagus and parameres - but in the text, the authors don't call attention to that and, in fact, have gone even further and implied some form of equality between the "external morphology and the male genitalia" with the use of "both". Are you fine defending it if somebody drags that to errors, or would you like to reword? Second question - the discovery of new species means that the 2014 paper is technically outdated. The article shows this with tense and the verb "classify", hook doesn't. Are you okay with rewording it to match the article a bit more, or bringing in a newer source? Feel free to tell me if I'm being too nit-picky. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 04:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GreenLipstickLesbian: Oh my goodness, I forgot to respond! Thank you very much for your detailed review. I think. Good point on the Sharp thing; fixed. I think a reword of the hook is in order, since you're correct on that too:
  • ALT1: ... that the classification of species in the beetle genus Caccothryptus was primarily based on their genitals?05:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caccothryptus&oldid=1285149298"