Talk:Drosophila mettleri/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 20:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jillian Shah: I commend you for the amount of work that you have put into this article, and I would be very happy to provide a good article review. I suspect you have been waiting a long time as this looks like a review that may take a little while. Could I ask you to confirm that you're still around and happy to make changes based on my suggestions (if appropriate)? I'm sure you can understand that I don't want to spend a long time working with the article if you're not able to respond! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Thank you so much for the kind words! I would love to work on getting the article to good article standing! I apologize for the long wait time in my response! 65.254.109.19 (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I'll provide a full review over the next few days. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok; this is a really well-referenced and well-researched article. I suppose the challenge is condensing all this dense academic research down to the particular genre of a Wikipedia article - most crucially, making it accessible for readers. As such, most of my comments are going to be about accessibility and meeting Wikipedia norms. This shouldn't be surprising; I don't have any particular knowledge of flies, nevermind these flies! I often recommend that new editors look to featured articles for examples of how to structure articles and the sort of thing that should be included. We only have a couple of featured articles on insects, but I think they will be useful. Take a look at Thopha saccata and Chrysiridia rhipheus.

• Lead section. The lead should summarise what is written elsewhere in the article; some editors really don't like seeing references there (though it's certainly not banned) as everything should already be referenced elsewhere. Three paragraphs should be sufficient; I've tried to condense things down to that, but I think a bit more work is needed on accessibility. Focus on the basics. The first few sentences are great; it's a fly, it's found here, it's associated with these plants. The stuff about genes is probably not so great.
• Description. Don't start a description section comparing it to another fly the reader probably hasn't heard of. Describe the fly! Guidebooks will be useful for this, but if it's too obscure to be included in guidebooks, go back to the original species description. Diagnostic information to separate it from a related species can come after that.
• Beware of jargon. We can revisit this after some of the organisational puzzles have been resolved, but, for example, what is a "frons pollinose"? What are "less maturated gonapophysics"? If jargon is unavoidable, provide a wikilink at the first mention. If a wikilink is not possible, provide an explanation.
• Could you name the species of the Southern Californian prickly pear?
• Is it only found in the Sonoran Desert? I feel this belongs in the opening sentences of the distribution section!
• I wonder if things could be a little more streamlined in the "Distribution due to heat" section. It's not completely clear that you're talking about distribution for most of it; it feels like you're talking about breeding habits.
• Judging from the discussion in the "Effects of geographic barriers" section, you do have some information on phylogenetics. I think this should be included, along with information about the original description (e.g., authorities, origin of the name) and any subsequent reclassifications, synomyms, subspecies, etc. in a "Taxonomy" section. (Look at the featured articles I mentioned above for an idea of what this might look like.)
• "The main host plants include the saguaro (Carnegiea gigantea), the cardon (Pachycereus pringlei), and the senita (Lophocereus schottii) cacti." Could you provide a reference for this claim? Also, why is there no mention of the prickly pears here?
• The section entitled "Selection of host plant by rot patches" is unreferenced. Is it needed? I'd consider removing it.
• The next section, too; this feels like a (rather technical) rehashing of one study, rather than something central to understanding this fly species. I'm not saying it has to be removed, but perhaps it could be refocussed; could this be said in a sentence?
• The "Defense mechanism" section is also unreferenced.

Stopping there for now; I've got to the mating section, but not started it. Please double-check my edits to make sure you're happy. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• "of desert Drosophila of the Eremophila complex are similar" I don't understand this. Is Eremophila a sub-generic grouping of Drosophila? The link goes to an Australian plant genus.
• Is the whole paragraph of "Courtship behavior" sourced to the single reference?
• Does courtship song warrant its own subsection? Surely this information could be incorporated with the other information about courtship behaviour; indeed, it looks like some of it already is.
• Similar comments about "Male-female control"; your referencing could be clearer, and perhaps this information could be merged in with other information about mating? Generally, I think you might make a bit too much use of subsections
• " Future generations showed transcriptional changes in genes triggering different metabolic pathways better equipped to detoxify the variant chemical environment of their host-cacti." Reference?
• "ectoparasistic mites that live" Could you provide some names? Family, genus, species?
• "D. mettleri is one of two species of nine that can use the juices of the senita cactus as food." Nine what? I don't understand this sentence.
• The section "Mutualism role in nesting area choice" is a nice example of content that is given its own subsection in a (perhaps not needed?) "Mutualism" section, when the content could probably be a single sentence (or single clause) in the section on breeding.

---

Ok, we're looking at almost a month with no activity on the article or this page. Is there anyone stepping up to work on this article? If not, I suspect I am going to have to close this review as stale. If you need more time for some reason but do intend to come back to this, let me know! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok - given the lack of response, I am going to close the review at this time. Commendable though the article is, it is not ready to be promoted to GA status, for the reasons outlined above. Once you (or anyone!) has worked your way through my comments, you should renominate. Then, a fresh pair of eyes can take a look at the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)