Talk:Nannaria swiftae

Nannaria swiftae was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 19, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Arthropods Low‑importance

	Arthropods portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taylor Swift Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taylor Swift, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taylor Swift on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Taylor SwiftWikipedia:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTemplate:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTaylor Swift articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nannaria swiftae/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 16:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is my first GAN in the Science space. I read your comments and it seems like a lot of work that needs to be done. I think you can fail the GAN for now. Thanks. ℛonherry☘ 09:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The sectioning is very weird; Description seems to cover both the taxonomic and morphological interpretation of the term? I would prefer the more standard sectioning of "Taxonomy and systematics", "Description", and "Distribution and habitat".
The amount of text discussing the name is very WP:UNDUE. The entire description, should at most be one paragraph. The etymology specifically should just be one line (Something like "The lead author of the study is a fan of the American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift; N. swiftae is named after her as a tribute to her music and its effect on the author").
No information on the taxonomy of the genus or family, and the species' taxonomic position within the genus?
Description is a single sentence long, and is more or less verbatim from the description. It also provides no information that would actually help identify the species; it needs measurements, detailed morphology, and the information from the keys that helps separate it from other Nannaria in its range.
The text in Distribution is misleading: "especially in..Van Buren" suggests that N. swiftae is found primarily in those counties, when it is in fact known exclusively from those counties.
The text in habitat is copied verbatim from the paper describing the species.
You could add a photo of Swift and a diagram of the species gonopods.
Overall, the extreme paucity of information about the species (we have an etymology, key, and range) makes me think it could be handled better as part of List of species in Nannaria.