# Talk:Rhodinia fugax

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rhodinia fugax/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 16:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy to see a moth here! Review follows soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The specific epithet – Very technical. Link the term, and add "The specific epithet fugax" to make clear what is meant?
Etymology discusses Japanese and English only, but what about other parts of its distribution? It could be undue weight if, e.g., the Korean name is not mentioned, or is the moth particularly important in Japan?
An (in my opinion) important missing information: Are there any similar species that this species can be confused with, and if so, how to distinguish? What about Antheraea yamamai, for example?
In captivity, the larvae are reared on Crataegus. – sentence out of place where it is. Always reared on Crataegus? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
which resemble lanterns on defoliated trees. – I first read it like this: "Lanterns on defoliated trees are similar", which makes no sense. Maybe reformulate to remove this ambiguity: "which, on defoliated trees in winter, resemble lanterns"
Mating begins between 5 AM-8 AM, and ended in the time between 3 PM-6 PM – change in tense. Why past tense in the first place? Why not present tense?
First section of "Interactions with humans" needs source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
The generic name of fugax – that is misleading, the generic name is Rhodinia.
The article really appears to be Japan-centric. The Japanese subspecies are mentioned with some information in the text, but not Rhodinia fugax szechuanensis, for example.
Note that the lead does not have citations (because all information + citations need to appear in the body as well in any case). Also note that biology articles usually order the sections with Taxonomy and etymology first. These are not crucial issues though.
I suggest to avoid the technical term "et al." by replacing with "and colleagues", to make the article more accessible.
That's all, thanks for this work! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello @Jens Lallensack:! Thank you for taking the time to go over the article, I've never formally replied to a GA review so please be patient with me if this is the improper format. I'll try and go through each of your points throughout the upcoming day and see what we can do together to improve the article. Thank you so much for your feedback so far! Ornithoptera (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Very glad you're excited to review a moth! I've gone through and done some preliminary work on the more smaller issues, and we can probably discuss the broader issues as they arise. For now, points 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 have been addressed. Points 2 and 9 I'll try and do research on. One concern with point 9 is that there exists little information on Brechlin's Chinese subspecies out there available at the moment. I will try to do some additional research on subspecies diana since there exists some information out there, but I'm not entirely sure on how to go about the research for the remainder of the subspecies, given how little info exists out there. However, the points you have brought up here have been entirely valid so hopefully we can make some progress! --Ornithoptera (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I have addressed points 2 (no Russian common name was found), and 10, with partial editing on point 9, as there is just little information on the subspecies outside of Japan available. I found Brechlin's original description for the moths he discovered in 2007, with additional info on subspecies szechuanensis. I have concerns with 3, as there is just no information on differentiation from other Saturniids other than going through original research, which is discouraged on here as I recall. In addition, I am not versed enough with describing moths to help with that sadly. If you have suggestions on point 3 on how I could go about it, I would genuinely appreciate it! Point 4 has been reworded, as the original source alludes to recommending breeders to feed the newly hatched larvae with Crataegus buds. The unintentional focus has really come from the lack of information outside of Japan which really impedes what I can write about other subspecies, which stinks because I would love to know more! Regardless, I hope I have addressed the major concerns, I'd love to hear your feedback and thank you for working with me on this! Happy New Years by the way, I completely forgot to say! Ornithoptera (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the fixes. All good now. Congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Cheers, and Happy New Year @Jens Lallensack:! Ornithoptera (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)