Talk:Caccothryptus compactus

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 18:23, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) 22:16, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Beetles, once again. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, lists, and tables):

   Well written (quibbles addressed below). Lead good. Layout good. Word choice good. No fiction, lists, or tables.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Reference section with inline reliable sources. My spot checks turned up no issues.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Focused on the beetle. Searching for more substantial discussion of the species, I was unable to find any, so I am satisfied that this is a broad look.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No neutrality issues.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   All good here.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions and alt text):

   No images. None available as far as I can tell, so that is fine.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Spot checks:

• reference 4 checks out
• instances of reference 2 checks out
• instances of reference 1 check out
• reference 6 checks out
• I am satisfied with this check.

Misc comments:

• might be worth mentioning that it was described in 1902 in the lead? neutral on this, feel free to not, I just thought it was relevant after reading so many of these that this one was described looong before.
  • Fixed.-G
• Include issns maybe? Optional, but since Koleopterologische Rundschau doesn't have an article or DOIs it might be helpful for the full set. but again, optional.
• A lectotype for the species might be worth saying C. compactus here because the previous sentence refers to a number of species
  • Fixed.-G
• who also incorporated the three species of Maurice Pic's Macrobyrrhinus genus, treating it as a synonym of Caccothryptus. I know what this is trying to say but I feel like it's a bit complicated for the average reader. maybe specify what it being incorporated means here
  • Rephrased.-G
• and also included seems incorrect; maybe "also including"? not sure what bothers me here
  • Fixed.-G

Otherwise no issues, good work. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

• @PARAKANYAA: Responded! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:27, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.