Talk:Mopsea

Mopsea has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 11, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Animals Low‑importance

Mopsea is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Mopsea is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

GA review

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

Nominator: Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: ZKevinTheCat (talk · contribs) 14:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starting the GA review — ZKevinTheCat

Review

Pretty good article. I don't really have any major problems with it. I really only have one question: "Mopseidae" and "Mopseadae" are both given as spellings. Is this intentional?

Spot check:
[26] - good
[18] - good
[8] - good

ZKevinTheCat (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard back from the nominator in a bit so I investigated this myself. The spelling is intentional, and I've left a clarifying note. With this disambiguated, I can now pass the article. Good work. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKevinTheCat My bad, I completely missed that! Yes, "Mopseadae" was an early 19th-century spelling, from the time when the nomenclature code wasn't as strict as it was today. Isididae was also originally called Isidae before being more correctly latinized. Sorry for the late reply! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]