"Owlfly" is, in Google, much more common than "Ascalaphidae". Shouldn't his be the article title per WP:Common name? The article is mostly using "owlfly" in any case.
Agreed. Let's ask for it to be moved immediately after this GAN. We can't do it now as it tangles up the bot.
Taxonbox: Late Jurassic–Recent should be linked.
Tried that, it breaks the gadget. The geological periods are however linked in the coloured timebar, e.g. "J" links to Jurassic.
clubbed antennae; the latter have short – "the latter" seems to refer to "antennae" here, so repeat "dragonflies" instead?
Done.
and different wing venation – can be specify? "reticulate wing venation"?
Done.
1.5 inches – It's a science article, we really want SI units here I think.
Converted.
Adult Ululodinae such as Ululodes – state that this is a subfamily of owlflies?
Done.
Owlflies are worldwide in distribution, occurring in temperate and tropical habitats. – Source?
Added.
generally called owlflies. – Why "generally", so it isn't an exact synonym?
"Commonly".
I miss the taxonomy section that other articles have. Taxonomic history? First description + citation? This could also be combined with etymology (of the common name, and what is the etymology of "Ascalaphidae"?). Or maybe a "taxonomy" could be combined with "Evolution"?
Added a note on these things, and the etymology, under 'Evolution'.
abdomen, monophyletic, nuclear phylogenomic analysis, paraphyletic, mitochondrial rRNA and mitogenomic data – link?
Added.
The abdomen in many crepuscular species is raised at rest, mimicking a broken twig – That contradicts "During the day, adults rest on stems and twigs with the body, legs, and antennae pressed to the stem"?
Fixed.
Haploglenius luteus [nl] – To me, personally, it seems pointless to link to a Dutch WP article that is a stub of two sentences. Removing this would avoid a bit of clutter.
Unlinked.
heliographic signalling – what is that?
Glossed.
Mesascalaphus may be an entirely more basal member of the family – I don't understand the choice of words, why not simply "may be a basal member of the family"?
Done.
fossil owlfly genera incertae sedis include Ascaloptynx, Borgia, Mesascalaphus, Neadelphus, Prosuhpalacsa, and Ricartus. – I wonder why you list fossil genera but not recent genera? That does not seem to be consistent (I personally don't think that this list helps a lot).
Removed.
the Late Jurassic Mesascalaphus may be an entirely more basal member of the family, but it is now believed to be a member of Mesochrysopidae. – OK, but what, then, is the evidence for "dating back to the mid-Mesozoic at least"?
Well spotted. The evidence is for a Tertiary origin of the family. I've rewritten the section and added new refs.
Cratopteryx from the Early Cretaceous is probably a member of the Myrmeleontoidea; sometimes assigned to the Ascalaphidae, it is better considered incertae sedis.[14] – This information seems a bit random, or are all Mesozoic genera mentioned? Some more general information about the Mesozoic fossil record would be great instead.
Removed.
which recovered Ascalaphidae as a paraphyletic lineage within Myrmeleontidae; authors in that paper sunk Ascalaphidae into the Myrmeleontidae as subfamily Ascalaphinae – But that doesn't make it paraphyletic? I assume that some additional taxa were moved into Ascalaphidae/Ascalaphinae as well?
Yes, the Stilbopterygini and the Palparini, as you can see on the Machado tree at the top of 'Internal'. I've tweaked the wording.
advanced groups – "derived"?
I'd think that'd be more obscure, not less; "derived" has multiple meanings, at variance with what lay people might imagine.
Winterton et al – suggest "and colleagues" to avoid the technical term (which also lacks a dot)
Done.
not representing clades – maybe add explanation like "(natural groups)" to help with understanding? And link "clades"?
Done.
Phylogenetic analysis by Machado et al 2018 finds both "Myrmeleontidae" (underscored groups, "Myrm.") and "Ascalaphidae" paraphyletic with respect to each other, requiring a renaming of these taxa, – Isn't that the same study mentioned under "Phylogeny"? Maybe it can be removed there, then, to avoid content duplication and making it easier to follow.