Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lycorma imperialis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 17:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll expand my horizons a bit... will get this in the next day or two. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
The article in question was written by a fairly prolific insect photographer and entomologist. I quite like the source since it summarizes the topic very well (and cross-referencing it with my own knowledge on the genus, the info is both accurate and well put) but I'll dump a few more supporting sources as well. Better to over source than under source.
Funny enough, you're thinking of Lycorma delicatula, a close relative of Lycorma imperialis and another GA of mine. There does not appear to be any accounts of Lycorma imperialis becoming invasive, but I would not be surprised if it does become invasive in the near future. Etriusus 22:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly speaking, I'm treading on somewhat of a niche topic here. By all means, I understand that GAs can be niche, but the info available is limited. Thankfully the original accounts of the species were archived. I honestly wish I could do more but without breaking the bounds of OR, my hands are somewhat tied. Maybe as Lycorma delicatula becomes more prevalent, it will spark more interest in its clad as a whole. Etriusus 22:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Kicking the article back to you. Its kinda sad how Lycorma delicatula gets all the love but the other 3 species in the Lycorma genus are neglected. I'm on a mission to get the whole genus up to good topic status but I'm absolutely dreading the work that L. meliae, and L.olivacea will require (somehow even less documented but ironically have some of the best copyright free images). Etriusus 17:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These all look good, passing now! Ealdgyth (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Etriusus (talk). Self-nominated at 13:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: We can drop ALT0 in that case. ALT1 is fixed. ALT2, I clarified to be more general in respect to the abstract. Here is a better source for ALT1. Etriusus 01:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the edits. I'm almost ready to approve this: I would just like one thing to be clarified: is L. imperialis explicitly mentioned in the "Interacting Gears" journal article? I don't have access to the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't mentioned; only another planthopper species. The full article is available here from author, so ALT2 probably can't be used. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the full paper (Thank you Mike) its less clear about if thats a general trait of planthoppers or not. Realistically, I'll need to cut this from the article. In that case, just promote ALT1, its not a hill I feel particularly strong about dying on. (My cat walked across my keyboard so hopefully none of the code was broken) Etriusus 20:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well it looks like some code did break since the top of the page had some weird text; I've fixed it now. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Is there anything else that needs to be taken care of before promoting ALT 1? I put the updated source on alt 1. Etriusus 22:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm a bit on the fence about it. My main concern is really more of the source not mentioning L. imperialis by name in the source, which I feel may be discouraged by DYK. I'll ask for a second opinion from our resident biology expert Cwmhiraeth if the source saying that all species under Lycorma having that trait (and thus by extension imperialis) is sufficient for DYK purposes. The hook itself is interesting and fine, it's the sourcing that's giving me pause at the moment. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, most online sources state that Lanternbug and Fulgoridae are synymous. It's a rather complex issue however since the subfamily (arguably) doesn't use to the distinction but the genus seems to. Weither that be western colloquilaism thanks to Spotted lanternfly (lycorma deleticula) or a scientific designation is difficult to say. The implication from the Fulgoridae article's uncited passage is that light based names means it is considered a lanternfly, with lycorma derives from the word lyco or light. Likewise, its most immediate relative is also called "lanternfly" and "lanternbug".
Here is an Okay source, but not the best. I'll wait for the expert opinion before digging further.
I am in no way a natural history expert, but anyway, I think ALT1 is both interesting and cited inline to a reliable source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the input Cwmhiraeth. I'll just wait for Etriusus's response before approving this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Sounds good. Thank you both for being so thorough. Etriusus 17:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Modified ALT1 to T:DYK/P7
Categories