Stalk-eyed fly was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 17, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Here's a really nice image I found on Commons if someone knows an appropriate article to use it for. — BrianSmithson 19:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The article by L. Papp, M. Földvári & P. Paulovics (1997) in footnote 3 may be correctly quoted, but the composite word “sphyracephala” is wrong; it has to be sphyrocephala. The scientific name of this “hammerhead”, cf. Greek σφῦρ|α [spʰȳr-] + κεφαλ|ή [kepʰal-], results from a combination of the main chunks of these words and --
Consequently, we get σφυροκέφαλο [spʰȳroképʰalo], a word which necessarily is furnished with an -α in plural. In Latin the name would be sphyrocephala.
The entomologists should perhaps ask a linguist before they go public with their new species…
A detail ? Well, this hammerhead article is replete with interesting details. Should a linguist renounce the same pleasure of diving into the nitty-gritty of how the entomologists account for their research ?
I have now corrected two instances of “sphyracephala” and one of “sphryacephala”[sic]. The one belonging to the article should remain morphologically wheelbroken. We can’t correct what is already printed, but we could do better next time. Hirpex ( talk) 18:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I have added a Behavior Section, under which I have created a Vision section and a Mating section. I have also heavily revised the Sexual Selection section to more accurately reflect what is known. I also add a considerable number of sources to strengthen the article as a whole. and rearranged the photos. I also remove the Research section, as if was unnecessary, poorly referenced and receptive. Also the good information in this section was placed in context in the other sections and elaborated upon.
-- Cobiorower ( talk) 01:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC) cobiorower
This article is well written and provides a lot of interesting information, especially with the Wilkinson and Reillo experiments. What Cobiorower did with organization was a good idea. You could consider adding more sub-sections to the "Sexual Selection" part to make the large block of text less intimidating and more clear. Good job. Njoymusic2 ( talk) 22:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I thought the information about the sexual selection experiments was very interesting. I feel like the article may be better suited as a wikipedia entry if the specific details of the experiment were excluded and the article focused on the conclusions. In other words, taking the names of the researchers and their methodology out. If the experiments themselves are particularly influential, they should probably have their own sub-headings (which I'm planning on addint) Gabriel.hassler ( talk) 04:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what to tell you man, this article is very good. I like the inclusion of experiments to bring in new elements of doubt and uncertainty. Whereas encyclopedic entries tend to be more on the gritty factual side, your mention of the sexual selection experiments for this species provides a deeper insight not only into the knowledge, but the foundation and origin of the information. The headings and style are very good, and flow well together. I generally had no difficulty in reading the passages as they were clear and not passive in delivery. TKYung ( talk) 05:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sasata ( talk · contribs) 01:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll review this article. Should have comments up within a couple of days. Sasata ( talk) 01:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I've added some comments based on a quick read-through. There's more to discuss, but these will get us started. Sasata ( talk) 16:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Main editor appears to be inactive (hasn't edited since December 23), so am closing this review. Sasata ( talk) 19:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
16:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Stalk-eyed fly was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 17, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Here's a really nice image I found on Commons if someone knows an appropriate article to use it for. — BrianSmithson 19:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The article by L. Papp, M. Földvári & P. Paulovics (1997) in footnote 3 may be correctly quoted, but the composite word “sphyracephala” is wrong; it has to be sphyrocephala. The scientific name of this “hammerhead”, cf. Greek σφῦρ|α [spʰȳr-] + κεφαλ|ή [kepʰal-], results from a combination of the main chunks of these words and --
Consequently, we get σφυροκέφαλο [spʰȳroképʰalo], a word which necessarily is furnished with an -α in plural. In Latin the name would be sphyrocephala.
The entomologists should perhaps ask a linguist before they go public with their new species…
A detail ? Well, this hammerhead article is replete with interesting details. Should a linguist renounce the same pleasure of diving into the nitty-gritty of how the entomologists account for their research ?
I have now corrected two instances of “sphyracephala” and one of “sphryacephala”[sic]. The one belonging to the article should remain morphologically wheelbroken. We can’t correct what is already printed, but we could do better next time. Hirpex ( talk) 18:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I have added a Behavior Section, under which I have created a Vision section and a Mating section. I have also heavily revised the Sexual Selection section to more accurately reflect what is known. I also add a considerable number of sources to strengthen the article as a whole. and rearranged the photos. I also remove the Research section, as if was unnecessary, poorly referenced and receptive. Also the good information in this section was placed in context in the other sections and elaborated upon.
-- Cobiorower ( talk) 01:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC) cobiorower
This article is well written and provides a lot of interesting information, especially with the Wilkinson and Reillo experiments. What Cobiorower did with organization was a good idea. You could consider adding more sub-sections to the "Sexual Selection" part to make the large block of text less intimidating and more clear. Good job. Njoymusic2 ( talk) 22:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I thought the information about the sexual selection experiments was very interesting. I feel like the article may be better suited as a wikipedia entry if the specific details of the experiment were excluded and the article focused on the conclusions. In other words, taking the names of the researchers and their methodology out. If the experiments themselves are particularly influential, they should probably have their own sub-headings (which I'm planning on addint) Gabriel.hassler ( talk) 04:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what to tell you man, this article is very good. I like the inclusion of experiments to bring in new elements of doubt and uncertainty. Whereas encyclopedic entries tend to be more on the gritty factual side, your mention of the sexual selection experiments for this species provides a deeper insight not only into the knowledge, but the foundation and origin of the information. The headings and style are very good, and flow well together. I generally had no difficulty in reading the passages as they were clear and not passive in delivery. TKYung ( talk) 05:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sasata ( talk · contribs) 01:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll review this article. Should have comments up within a couple of days. Sasata ( talk) 01:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I've added some comments based on a quick read-through. There's more to discuss, but these will get us started. Sasata ( talk) 16:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Main editor appears to be inactive (hasn't edited since December 23), so am closing this review. Sasata ( talk) 19:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
16:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)