Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Opifex fuscus/archive1: Difference between revisions

Opifex fuscus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 14 October 2025, 16:52 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.

Nominator(s): AxonsArachnida (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Opifex fuscus, the saltpool mosquito of New Zealand. In their juvenile stages, they live in salt pools (pools of water formed by ocean spray) of rocky coasts throughout most of the country. To survive in this habitat, they have an unusual ability to tolerate high levels of salinity. As juveniles they also have mouthparts that can develop to specialise in filter feeding or grazing, depending on what types of food are available. They are also notable for their unusual mating behaviour. The males sit on the surface of rock pools and grab the cocoons of females and mate with them before they’ve even matured into adults.

This article passed GA review a couple of months ago and has just received a peer review. I feel it meets the FA criteria and is ready to undergo this process. This would be an excellent addition to the Featured Articles list since flies as a whole are woefully underrepresented. Any comments/critiques on how to improve the article further would be appreciated. AxonsArachnida (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments soon! ~ HAL333 19:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “New Zealand, but have been displaced” – comma not needed
• “As adults they are known to feed on blood whereas” -> “As adults they feed on blood whereas”
• I would italicize fuscus when you mention its Latin origin.
• I don’t think the parenthetical explanation of type specimen/species is needed – it’s a bit cumbersome.

• In fact, I think the use of parentheticals needs to be toned down throughout the article. It’s excessive and awkward.
  • See comments further down in reply chain.

• I would add the location of Canterbury Museum (also, is it not the Canterbury Museum?).
• “designated it its” -> “designated it as its” for clarity
• “The thorax is somewhat wider than the head” – what is meant by “somewhat” here?
  • Changed to “slightly wider”.
• “The eggs’ dimensions” – should be singular “egg”.
  • I went the other way with this and changed it from “The eggs’ dimensions are 0.3 mm by 0.5 mm (0.01 by 0.02 in) and are ovoid in shape” to “The eggs’ dimensions are 0.3 mm by 0.5 mm (0.01 by 0.02 in) and they are ovoid in shape”.
• “The larvae are known to be infected” -> to something more concise like “The larvae can be infected”

That’s all for now. ~ HAL333 22:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333 just watching this as an interested party. Regarding the use of parentheticals, I think most of them were added at my behest in the peer review. I’m wondering if your objection is based on the details of the formatting, i.e. using parenthesis, or the explanations in general? I hate to put the nominator in the awkward position of being dragged in opposite directions by two different reviewers. RoySmith (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This issue—whether or not some of the exotic terms on scientific articles should have immediate explanations—has come up on a few scientific FACs before, and I remember one that had an extended discussion from many editors, but the exact FAC escapes me at this time…. The rough consensus (although we may eventually need a more centralized discussion) was that it was impractical to define all the scientific terms that might be unknown to the reader. This is also a hyperlinked digitial encyclopedia. It’s alright if a term may be unfamiliar – the reader can click on the wikilink. I am not necessarily opposed to having explanations in the body, but ideally they would be integrated in a more natural, fluid, and encyclopedic way. Britannica doesn’t use sporadic parentheticals to define terms. Other featured articles on insects/invertebrates have similarly esoteric terms within (see the recent Megarachne (2020) or Alicella (2025)) but don’t typically rely too heavily on parentheticals. There also seemed to be incosistency in terms of what had a parenthetical explanation and what did not. There were a few times where a term that I would consider to be more obscure/less accessible to a lay audience did not have a parenthetical, while more ‘popular’ ones did. If I were to rework the parentheticals, I would:

• Remove the ones in the lead

• “vector (organism that spreads disease)” – just link disease vector and use “disease vector” in place of vector.

• Elsewhere, simple dependent clauses like “(often within a few seconds of capture)”, “(which is used in mating)”, or “(and is also the largest increase in biomass)” could be taken out of the parentheses and placed after a comma, as they exacerbate the issue of the excess parentheticals.

• I went ahead and reduced this. I also toned down the use of parentheses for technical terms where reasonable.

But for more obscure terms like “terminalia”, I would be fine with parentheticals. Alternatively, the more basic explanation could be used in the text, and the technical term could be placed in the parentheses at times. ~ HAL333 14:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333@RoySmith “This issue—whether or not some of the exotic terms on scientific articles should have immediate explanations—has come up on a few scientific FACs before, and I remember one that had an extended discussion from many editors, but the exact FAC escapes me at this time…. The rough consensus (although we may eventually need a more centralized discussion) was that it was impractical to define all the scientific terms that might be unknown to the reader.” It would definitely be great to have a centralized discussion around it somewhere. I’ve been doing a bunch of GA species articles and the various reviewers tend to nudge me towards adding explanations in text for most scientific terms.

Regardless, I’ve purged most of the parenthetical explanations and replaced them. Any objections if I remove the explanations for “thorax” and “larvae”? I feel those are simple enough that most people either know what it means or can easily figure it out within seconds. AxonsArachnida (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for knowing very little about mosquitoes, so some questions may seem inane.

• Potentially some sea of blue issue with introduced and Aedes australis right next to each other; perhaps just insert “mosquito” after introduced.

• Copepods are not groups of small crustaceans, they’re small crustaceans.

• Online-latin-dictionary seems a little sketchy as a source. I’d use Logeion, entry seen here
• Link Aedini (and potentially include it in the taxonomy infobox? Unsure how things like that work)
• Cites out of order after “5 mm (0.2 in) in length”
• I don’t think it matters anyway, but for reference Template:Convert allows you to avoid manually inputting conversions and non-breaking spaces.
• I’d link pupa and larva
• You use the singular for pupa but plural for larva, is there a particular reason?
• I assume the first paragraph of diet is talking about adults? If so, note that it’s adult females
• What do males eat?
  • It’s not stated anywhere. Presumably they don’t feed at all.
• Once in the pupae stage they do not feed While in the larva stage, unless they don’t eat afterwards
  • Sorry, I don’t quite understand this comment.
• Any indication of how long adults live after emerging?
  • None that I’ve been able to find. Probably a few weeks at most.
• Mating paragraph is quite long, I’d find a place to split it.
• Mating with pupae is very interesting. is this behavior wholly unique among mosquitos or are there other examples?
  • Great question. I managed to find one other mosquito example. Added a quick mention to the article.
• I’d make it explicit in the lede that they are not known to transmit diseases in the wild.
• Make sure journals consistently have ISSNs if you’re going to include them for any of the sources.
  • Added to nearly all journals (one doesn’t seem to have one).
• Be consistent about whether you put periods after initials in names or not.

All from me! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Cites out of order after “5 mm (0.2 in) in length”, please note that WP:CITEORDER says this is not a problem (he says looking in the direction of WT:FAC#Reviewer leeway to create alternative standards). RoySmith (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shit, my apologies. I struck that – I had gotten people tell me to fix it so many times I just assumed it was in the MoS without checking. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, I think that’s pretty common with a lot of stuff 🙂 RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve replied to your comments above. Fixed everything except there was one comment that I didn’t quite understand. AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• but have been displaced from the Otago region by Aedes australis – I think it should be specified in the lead that this is an introduced species.
• As adults they are known to feed on blood whereas the larvae feed on algae and decomposing matter – I suggest to move this up, just before “The larvae have mouthparts that specialize …”, otherwise the order of information is confusing.
• but aren’t known – “is not known”
• “fuscus” means darkly coloured – suggest to use single quotes for ‘darkly coloured’ (you could alternatively use the lang and gloss templates which do the same).

I went ahead and inserted the templates (they tell screen readers how to properly pronounce). —Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• However just two years later, this subfamily was later – later is repetitive.
• As adults, they can be distinguished from the rest of New Zealand’s mosquitoes by the presence and absence of certain bristles on the abdomen, the shape of the antennae and the absence of scales on the upper surface of the head – this needs wikilinks, some are linked later but should be linked at first mention.
  • The only think I could think to hyperlink is antennae (which was also linked further down). I don’t see what you mean with there being others.
• The antennae are blackish and have three long bristles near the base of it. – base of what? “near their base”?
• The thorax of the pupae (juvenile stage where the mosquito is in a cocoon-like structure) have – singular/plural mismatch
• Optional: I feel that explanation of terms was slightly overdone, or at least not consistent. “Larvae” and “salinity” do not need a gloss in my opinion, wikilink is enough.
  • Sounds good. Removed explanations for larvae and salinity.
• “the permeability of the cuticle was much less – “lower”?
• In lab conditions, the females would spend 5 to 12 minutes feeding on human blood. – before laying the first eggs?
  • This is just the length of the time they blood feed. It doesn’t necessarily mean they immediately go and lay eggs.
• pectinate type brushes – I suggest to remove “type”, and “pectinate” is a term that I would explain (“comb-shaped”?) or avoid altogether.
  • Removed type. Pectinate term is explained further up.
• Mating begins extremely early for females, with mating usually occurring at the time of emergence. – This reads repetitive. Also, the “begins” does not make sense, as it implies there is continuous mating, which does not seem to be the case? I suggest “Females mate extremely early, usually at the time of emergence.”
  • I’ve accepted your rewording.
• Once a larva pupates it will float to the surface. The males will then grab the pupae – why do you switch to plural here?
• the pupae begin to emerge into an adult – same here.
• emerging mosquito is female, then the male will come into contact with its terminalia – if its a male, you write “his”, but if its a female, you choose “its”? (I would go for “its” in all cases)
  • I made everything consistently “its”
• That’s all on prose. Very interesting article. —Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I’ve addressed all these comments. AxonsArachnida (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. —Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “Within the salt pools that they occupy, the copepod Tigrio fulvus, a small crustacean, is often present.”. Is this a synonym of “Tigriopus fulvus“, which is listed in our article Tigriopus? If so, perhaps a link to that article would do until the species article is created?
  • Changed to Tigriopus fulvus and linked to Tigriopus genus page. Will swap it to T. fulvus if and when that article is made.
• “Few larvae pupate during winter, with September being the time of year when …”: per WP:SEASON we need to be specific. How about “Few larvae pupate during the winter months (June to August), with September being the time of year when …”?
  • Added your suggested change.
• “The females are recorded emerging into adults within five to thirty minutes after capture by the male.”. Since at this point in the article we have not described mating, “capture by the male” is opaque to the reader. Could we add a word or two to make it clear this refers to mating?
  • Made it clearer this is mating.
• In the “Mating” section you use both “he” and “it” to refer to males; I think “it” is more natural, but in either case it should be consistent.
  • Swapped out uses of he and her to it.

— Mike Christie (talk – contribs – library) 11:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie Thanks, I’ve made some changes. AxonsArachnida (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Changes look good. I look forward to seeing more of your articles — your writing is clear and precise. Can I suggest that you try your hand at reviewing FACs? The more reviewers we have the faster the process goes, and editors appreciate nominators who help out by reviewing. Mike Christie (talk – contribs – library) 16:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]