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

Nominator: Sir MemeGod (talk · contribs) 13:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 02:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see this here! And an interesting coincident, as I just nominated another critically endangered species (the cherry-throated tanager) from the Atlantic Forest! Will review shortly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• Generally speaking, the lead should be a summary of the article that is easy to understand for non-experts, and we should try to keep it as simple as possible.
• I suggest to remove "the subfamily Heliconiinae and the genus Actinote" and just mention the family, to make it more concise. (the genus is redundant because it is part of the species name anyways).
• We don't need references in the lead (because all information is supposed to be repeated in the main text anyways); would make it appear less cluttered.
• No need to link Brazil, but please link endemic.
• Its typical habitat is – Why "typical"? Does that mean it occurs outside the Atlantic Forest, too?
• I think the second paragraph should start with the basics (it was declared "critically endangered" by both the IUZN, which makes the official global red list, and on the national red list of Brasil (which is a regional red list). Then, point out that 100-species list.
• State of Sao Paulo – you should link to the state article (São Paulo (state)), not the city.

Taxonomy

• Between 1941 and 1942, the naturalist Romualdo Ferreira d'Almeida collected around ten specimens of a species of the genus Actinote at the Boracéia biological station – This is not possible, since the biological station was only established in 1954.
• and attributed the specimens to Actinote zikani whose characteristics he defined in 1951 – maybe instead write "and described them as a new species, Actinote zikani, in 1951"?

Description

• This needs some additions; most importantly size, but also the diagnostic features (what distinguishes this species from related species), and how does the caterpillar and pupa look like. Also, differences (if any) between males and females.

Biology

• I think source 22 is not fully correctly represented in the text. I strongly doubt that "they attack any insect", and you should provide the background/reason why they attack. I think it is necessary to read the source again and rework the section.
• male-dominted – should that be "male-dominated"?

Habitat and Distribution

• by its inventor – no, species are not being invented.

Disappearance and rediscovery

• Therefore considered extinct – who considered it extinct? The IUZN?

The article still needs some significant work to reach GA level, but it's certainly doable. I will need to do a second read and another round of comments after the above is addressed; I haven't checked source integrity yet. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, that doesn’t seem that hard. A little note, I will be away at something until Monday (2 days from now) and won’t respond to any messages in that time, but can fix up the article then :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 12:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. I will be away from Tuesday, too, so it could take me some days to do the second go-through. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've fixed up the lede, removed the references, removed the Bio station mention, linked state instead of city, iventor > describer, dominted > dominated, only thing I need to do is Biology and Disappearance and rediscovery. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 12:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack: I am back, see above comment as to what I've done. Also fixed up some peacockery issues highlighted in the DYK Nomination. Duplicate citations were also cleaned up. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 12:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack and Sir MemeGod: Where are we sitting with this, I have paused my DYK nomination review while the GA is going, but it looks like nothing has happened in about a week or more.--16:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused as well, Jens picked up the review and then left. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 16:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I told you above that I am travelling and can check only intermittently. But I see that you did not address all comments above yet anyways (for example, the expansion of the description section), so there is not much for me to do at the moment, too. I have to wait for that new content to include it in my second round of review. Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if what I said came off as rude, I just wasn't having a good day and just saw the bad in the situation. Even if it is delayed (which I now know is normal), thank you for taking the time to review the article. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 12:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, all good :) Looks like the article cited predatory journals (which are not considered to be reliable sources here), and since those sources have just been removed, the affected text has to be supported by other sources or removed in order to reach GA. Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack This has now been done. Please could you have another look? Thanks Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The new source (7) does not seem to fully support the content it is supposed to support (e.g., the claim that activity begins at 8 am each morning). Therefore, this does not meet WP:Verifiability. Every claim has to be supported by reliable sources (and claims should be removed for which no such source can be found). Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issue has been addressed. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 14:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You removed one sentence, but that was only an example. You need to check every single sentence that was previously supported by the source that has been removed. I cannot do this as a reviewer; all I can do is spot checking if the sources support the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I rechecked. There were a few sentences not supported by the source but supported by another source, so I just removed the source there. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 14:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better! The next step should be the expansion of the Description section, as outlined above. This is crucial to meet the GA criterion "comprehensiveness". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that should be better. I also checked, the source states everything I added. There isn't a lot of info about the butterfly's description, that might be as much as we know. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 14:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source 7 has info on eggs, instars, and pupa; that is all important information! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jens Lallensack: I'm going to move the discussion back down since it's now going off my screen, but I added ~2 paragraphs of info for the pupae, instar and egg phases. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 16:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much better now. What is still missing is information on body size (wing span or a similar measure). That's a very obvious and crucial information. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After doing a relatively deep search through all references, I could not find wingspan information. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 17:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source 3, section "Adult size" is all about body size. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all information has been added. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good now. I did some spotchecks and they turned out to be ok, without close paraphrasing issues. Promoting now, congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]