Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thopha saccata/archive1

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 not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Thopha saccata

Nominator(s): 99of9 and Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is small and concise - has everything the layperson could want to know about this critter. 99of9 and I will answer issues promptly - so have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what is it? "Thopha saccata, commonly known as the double drummer, is a species of cicada native to Queensland and New South Wales." That's what. Johnbod (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh - I guess easter egg links are lousy at attracting reviewers... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you drop them? I guess we could ask those that reviewed the Floury Baker? --99of9 (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey

Feel free to disagree with any of the silly comments this non-expert may make.

Why the parentheses for "Cicada saccata (Fabricius, 1803)" but not for "Tettigonia saccata Fabricius, 1803"

As per Author citation (zoology), the unparenthesed combination was the original, while all subsequent ones need the brackets Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"the ‘double drums’—that": should that not be in double quotes? (MOS:QUOTEMARKS)

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The genus name is derived from thoph (Hebrew: תּוֹף) "drum".": does this mean they gave it the genus name?

They are all drummers of some kind, and all males have big tymbal covers [2]. But yes it was one of the first in the genus, as is mentioned in the previous sentence. --99of9 (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"of any insect on earth": "on earth" can be taken for granted

removed. --99of9 (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

""almost unbearable"": can this not be rephrased rather than quoted?

For this and the strident shrieking, I think quotes are quite a good way to relate qualitative observations without imposing our own adjectives. But I'd be happy to see a suggestion - perhaps I don't properly understand your suggestion. --99of9 (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the original wording was pretty vivid and memorable, which is why I left it in quoted. Happy to hear if anyone thinks of some other wording. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, but quotations are supposed to be attributed, and I thought a rewording might be better than an "according to" in this case. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

aah ok, point taken...will get out my trusty thesaurus...changed first to "earsplitting" which carries the same connotation Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"While underground the nymphs are susceptible to fungal disease.": I had to read this three or four times before I could parse it—move "while underground" to the end?

agreed. --99of9 (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"in an often extensive 'catacomb',": again, shouldn't this be double quotes?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"class with their "strident shrieking"": again, can this not be rephrased to avoid the quotation?

~~see above.~~ "piercing sound"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All the images are on Commons and appear to be appropriately tagged and licenced, including one from 1885 that has fallen into the public domain and another created by one of the nominators. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text would be nice, but not an FAC requirement apparently.

done --99of9 (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:IMAGELOCATION says left-aligned images that start a section can cause readers problems, though apparently some editors disagree.

The long taxobox gives little scope for images if we have to make them all right-aligned. I have problems now in that we all edit from different-sized/shaped screens so is becoming harder to lay out images that work in all settings. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref check

I've only checked formatting—haven't visited the sources themselves.

Inconsistency in page range formatting: "227–233" for Ref#2, "225–38" for Ref #6 & all others

Fixed ref 2. --99of9 (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The natural history of Sydney, On biomimetics, Australian insects: a natural history should be in title case

done --99of9 (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"(Sydney, NSW : 1895 – 1930)", "The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 – 1954)", "The Mail (Adelaide, SA : 1912 – 1954)", "(Rockhampton, Qld. : 1878 – 1954)", "The Brisbane Courier (Qld. : 1864 – 1933)", "The Catholic Press (NSW : 1895 – 1942)": drop the spaces around the endash and before the colon. Why these date ranges?

date ranges removed - they were reference ranges as to what the national library of Australia holds - but is unnecessary for reader to know Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It looks like all my concerns have be taken care of. Sorry it took me a while to return to the review. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - thanks for the support :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 23 January 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, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry Cas, but with only one in-depth review in a month and a half, we'll have to call it a day and try again some other time... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - was taken aback at lack of input, but I guess something about it just looked unpolished to passers-by. Will get a peer review. I am guessing that the prose could do with a bit of buffingCas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:11, 3 March 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.