# Talk:Snakefly

In the Neuroptera article, Raphidioptera is said to be a suborder of the order Neuroptera, superorder Endopterygota. This articles places Raphidioptera as an order of the superorder Neuroptera. The Megaloptera  article places the Megaloptera as an order of the superorder Edopterygota, but mentions in the text that it is sometimes considered to be a suborder of the Neuroptera. I think that we should settle for one classification (and include an explanation of the ongoing debate in the article). If no one has any objection I would like to make the change in this article so that it corresponds to the Neuroptera article. --IronChris  |  (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Go for it, we learned it as a suborder of Neuroptera --Kugamazog 03:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Same here. At least at present it is still taught in University settings as a subdivision of Neuroptera. There's nothing wrong with presenting the debate, but I would still use the older format. --Entoaggie09 11:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, for all these reasons and more. --Stemonitis 10:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes the page is currently sitting at a vernacular name for the group.  However it is quite clear from the lead and subject matter that the article itself is on the Order Raphidioptera, and as such should be categorized as such. --Kevmin § 23:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kevmin, I'd like to invite you to join the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Categorizing taxa vs. common names. As you'll see there, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects#Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category supports what I'm doing, but you're also not the only one who wants to change that. If there's consensus for doing so, I'll abide by that decision, but in the meantime, I'd ask you to abide by the guidelines as they're written. I hope we can agree that "Snakefly" isn't the name of an order, at any rate. --BDD (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Snakefly/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 02:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, happy to take this! Also it's been long since I worked with you two, Chiswick and Cwmhiraeth :D Sainsf (talk · contribs) 02:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to the previous reviewer for diligently checking almost everything in the article except the prose quality, which is what my review will primarily focus on. Dablinks, copyvio, deadlinks - no issue detected. So here are my comments:

In the lead,
There is a line with an inline citation.. is the fact not covered elsewhere in the main text? Why add a ref in the lead?
Maybe wikilink thorax, ovipositor, larvae and pupae? I am not sure which of these would be too common in the context of this article, so I leave it to you.
...used to deposit eggs under bark or in some other concealed location and In most species, the larvae develop under the bark of trees - maybe "trees" is redundant, as it is excluded in the first mention? If you make changes here note the part in Ecology too.
Description:
by having an elongate prothorax elongated?
not the modified forelegs of the Mantispidae Maybe "mantis-flies" would be more reader-friendly? They won't have to look up the wikilink for clarification on what fly we are referring to
Maybe wikilink sclerotinised to sclerotin? Similarly costal
"elongated" is being used a bit too frequently... probably look for alternatives? Not a must though
that is present in Raphidiids Should it not be "raphidiids", just like you use lower case for inocelliids earlier?
Some of the short sentences can be combined into a few long ones, just my suggestion to improve the prose.
Distribution and habitat:
"rich in species" is probably more reader-friendly than "speciose"
Life cycle:
"instar" is linked twice
 In rhaphidioptiids, mating takes place in a "dragging position", while in inoceliidads, the male adopts a tandem position under the female I am confused, what are rhaphidioptiids and inoceliidads? Different from raphidiids and inocelliids?
Convert template needed for 0 deg C
Ecology
Maybe wikilink territorial
raphidiidal species won't simply "raphidiid" work?
I feel the small predators and parasites section should really be included in this section.
Predators and parasites
Maybe wikilink "generalist"
Evolution
"relict" is a duplicate link
Use "mya" consistently
 Engel 2002 with updates according to Bechly and Wolf-Schwenninger, 2011 and Ricardo Pérez-de la Fuente et al (2012) Use commas, brackets or both consistently while mentioning these references. If possible you may add a few words introducing the authors.
The rest looks fine to me. A really well-written, interesting article. Cheers! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

One more thing I noticed though, in the sources. I am not confident about the private "Mikko's Phylogeny Archive" source, especially with its homepage stating "Please, don't use this page as a scientific reference. This site is not peer-reviewed, and any alleged information contained herein may in fact represent whim, caprice, bias, speculation, ignorance, or simply typographical error, rather than science." Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this on Sainsf. Chiswick Chap is away for a few days, so I will try to deal with your comments myself. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I think I have dealt with all these points (apart from the Engel 2002 one), and I have replaced "Mikko's Phylogeny Archive" with better sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Nice work :) I am happy to pass this article now. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The link to bole takes us to the article 'trunk (botany)', where the word bole does not even occur. 2607:FEA8:FF01:4FA6:B1EF:A68F:17E9:7D14 (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)