Talk:Partisaniferus/GA1

GA review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: IC1101-Capinatator (talk · contribs) 10:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The lead devotes one short paragraph to the species, and one to the generic name (which you oddly call "genus name"). The lead should briefly summarize each section of the article; at the moment, there is no summary of "Description", and very little on "Classification", "Palaeobiology", or "Palaeoecology".
- Done.

I appreciate the impulse to alternate the images left and right, but the head of Siphonophora image forces the "Palaeoecology" heading and text rightwards, which isn't desirable. Easiest would be to right-align the image; you could also move it to the top of its section.
- Done.

"prone to fires similar to tropical peat swamps". Guess you mean "as prone to fires as tropical peat swamps are".
- Done.

"Classification" would benefit from a simple cladogram of the Holometabola (you could recycle the tree from that article, cutting out any bits you don't need); you could mark this up with "?" or some such symbol to indicate possible placements of Partisaniferus within that group, to match the discussion in the text.
- Done.

"the physogastry of the new specimen (a feature associated with living in confined spaces)" would be better if you said briefly what physogastry was, and yes I can see it's linked. Perhaps "the physogastry of the new specimen (a swollen abdomen, associated with living in confined spaces)".
- Done, although it’s explained further up in the P. edjarzembowskii section.

"explainable by ontogeny (as they are much smaller..." - as you said in the previous paragraph, it's not exactly size but stage, i.e. an earlier instar/moult.
- Done.

Images

"Modern larvae similar to Partisaniferus in appearance": the middle diagram is of a fossil megalopteran.
- Done, adjusted caption to say “Other insect larvae” instead.
  - Well, it'd still be better to say the middle one is a fossil even if you don't want to link the Megaloptera for some reason. Otherwise folks will scratch their heads wondering why they've never seen anything quite like that anywhere. A reason for mentioning the Megaloptera is that you mention their abdominal gills a couple of paragraphs later, so it'd be helpful and sensible to do the same in the caption, e.g. something along the lines of "Middle image shows a fossil Megalopteran with abdominal gills".

All images are on Commons and seem to be correctly licensed. Only concern is that PeerJ says its materials are licensed by CC-by-[SA], PD, or CC-by-NC, and the last of these isn't ok for Commons. Can you point me to where it says the images here are actually CC-by-SA?
- In the “Author and Article information” section at the very start, it says “This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License” with “Creative Commons Attribution License” linking to Creative Commons’ CC-by 4.0 page.
  - Super. It would definitely be worth linking the Author & Article page on Commons.

Sources

All sources appear of suitable quality for the subject, and all are relevant to the article, whether directly on the topic or on pertinent subtopics like related species.

A large part of the article - the first half of "Description", almost all of "Classification" - is from a single source, [1]. I understand why this is, and I don't doubt that the species is notable, but it is uncomfortable to be quite so reliant on this one source.

The last sentence of the first paragraph of "Palaeobiology" is uncited.
- Done.

[2] ok, but "one large tergite" isn't quite right, the paper says "Trunk segments with continuous tergites without subdivision", i.e. there is one per segment not one per animal.
- Done.

[8] is not the 2023 paper alluded to in the paragraph, that must be [3]. You need to repeat [3] early in the paragraph. Perhaps it would be best to place [8] inside the parentheses "(while...likely[8])", with [3] either just before them, or at the end of the sentence.
- Done.

[15] ok, though the implicit proviso at the top of the paragraph (this is Burmese amber in general, not the actual specimen under discussion) does seem rather far away from the sentence; perhaps slight rewording would be best here to be clear.
- Done.

All done except the first issue, however I can only find three papers (the original, the second species, and the physogastric specimen) on Partisaniferus, and the third isn’t really as in-depth. Furthermore, P. atrickmuelleri's description and affinity is almost entirely written about within the first paper.

Could you please reply to each item separately, even if it's only "** Done" so I can see what's happened to each item. Many thanks!

Summary

OK, we're about there. I've made mostly small comments which should be simple to fix. The largest issue is the weight given to the main (primary) source. Obviously it would be desirable to be able to supplement this in some way, and evidently that isn't really possible at the moment. I don't see that as precluding GA status but I certainly feel the need to mention it here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all the issues except linking the Author and Article page and the source weight. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 07:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to insist but it's really easier (and less chaotic) if you could reply briefly to each item, so the not-done items stand out. Many thanks for the trouble. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added the licensing source over on Commons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.