Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thopha saccata/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 15:05, 7 May 2014 [1].

Thopha saccata edit

Nominator(s): 99of9 (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the world's loudest cicada - it ran through FAC before but generated little interest...we pondered about the prose so it has been through Peer Review, which has been very helpful (and thanks to those who commented there!). This has helped massage its prose alot and we feel it is at or near FA level. Let us know what we can do to improve it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I supported last time, and the article still looks good to me now. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comments. Nice article, two minor things Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and red-brown and black underparts— "and has"
  • while the former has black markings of the leading edge (costa) of the forewing extend past the basal cell—first "of" should be "on", methinks, and "extending"
fixed both - well spotted - thx for support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support; mostly had my say at PR. I still feel that the poems are a weak point to finish on (perhaps you could hide them in the middle of the paragraph somehow?), but that's a stylistic disagreement. A couple of comments... J Milburn (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Adults are present from November to early March, prolific in some years and absent in others. It is found in dry sclerophyll forest, preferring to alight and feed on large eucalypts[13][14] with diameters over 20 cm and sparse foliage concentrated at a height between 10 and 25 m,[13] particularly rough-barked species,[10] apples (Angophora) and Tristania.[11]" The nymphs are feeding on roots, but what precisely are the adults feeding on? (I see you mention sap further down- this should be present elsewhere in the article!)
added general note - should be gone into much more detail at cicada Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the eggs are laid in trees, but the nymphs live underground? Do they burrow down through the tree, or make a mad dash down the side?
the annoying thing is missing information compared with (say) bird articles. I have not seen it written how they get down unfortunately Got something! added.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff- that's plugged the gaps, for me. Delegates- Please note that my support is conditional on there being no source problems, as I have not looked in detail. J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Inconsistent caption use of SE vs Southeast - suggest the latter
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source link for File:Australia_Locator_Map.svg (the original source for the map) is dead.
Weird - the link seems to work ok now - see here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • In the infobox you have "Tettigonia saccata Fabricius, 1803" followed by "Cicada saccata (Fabricius, 1803)" -- any reason "Fabricius, 1803" is in parentheses for one and not the other? The parentheses look better to me FWIW...
the original description and binomial name does not have parentheses. Any subsequent name change has to add the parentheses around the original author. In animals the second author is never added while in plants they are - e.g for a plant Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will review this article and do a source review too, just need a day. Sasata (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I reviewed this article during PR and my concerns were addressed. It still seems in good shape. Praemonitus (talk) 04:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (and source review) by Sasata (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, just nitpicks.

  • links: type locality, specific name, tribe, thorax (only linked in lead), disjunct distribution, Sydney
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there an error in the page reference in Guérin-Méneville (1838) "225–38 [80]"
not sure where the page range comes from - removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The largest collected specimen has a wingspan of 15.1 cm (5.9 in),[2] and they average 13.3 cm (5.2 in)." The “they” is a bit awkward (seems to be referring to the single specimen)
Tried this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The thorax is brown, becoming paler in older specimens." specimens->individuals?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is little variation over its range" I’d add "in morphology" or something similar, unless it was meant that there is little variation in colour?
"colour" added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might help the flow a little bit in the description section if not so many sentences started with “The”
agree...it would....having a damn hard time trying to rejig sentences to avoid this...all input welcomed.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't it be more logical to include the paragraphs on singing behaviour in the behaviour section?
possibly - with birds it has always been in the description section, but I see it would fit in the latter as well. OPen to move if there is more of an opinion on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Adults are present from November to early March, prolific in some years and absent in others. It is found” It?
reworded - kept to plural as I think the segment works better as plural Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over 20 cm"; "between 10 and 25 m" add conversions
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The nymphs are susceptible to fungal disease while underground." this is reffed to a pretty weak, 100-year old source. Anything more recent, and perhaps a little more detail, like what fungus species/genera are involved-perhaps Massospora (will bluelink that soon)?
have removed it - it just refers to cicadas in general, not this species. I am trying to limit general material on this page - will add something on massospora if I can find it relates to this species Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Live cicadas are often collected by climbing trees" I did not know that trees could collect insects (or could climb).
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elementary text-book of entomology should be title case
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref #16: (Watson 2011) has "and" before the final author, unlike other citations
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • there’s a little inconsistency with title/sentence case in the citations; see refs #’s 16 and 38
title cased refs Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref #33: page range error ("pp. 348–39.")
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref #38: (McIntosh 1963): remove space between initials and give full page range
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref #39: (Tillyard 1926): formatting slightly off (note comma after year)
was in "citation" rather than "cite book" - should look better now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • isbns could be converted to the preferred ISBN 13s, if you’re so inclined

Closing comment -- I think we can safely call it a day on this review, if there's any further tweaks re. Sasata's comments then they can occur post-FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Thopha_saccata/archive2&oldid=1146351588"