Talk:Gigamachilis

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Insects Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects 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.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Palaeontology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

• ... that Gigamachilis triassicus is the largest apterygota insect, with a length of approximately 80 millimetres (3.1 in)?
  • Reviewed:

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 08:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 09:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TrueMoriarty Note that you can't review your own nomination, someone else will have to review it. HurricaneZetaC 01:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @HurricaneZeta thank you for the information

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 08:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a full review, but there are at least two user-generated sources in this article and one source is a permanently dead link. These need to be addressed before the nom can be approved. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, Mindat does appear to be user-generated. From its about page: Mindat.org is a dynamic database, with new information, localities and photographs continuously being added, verified, and updated by thousands of members across the world. User participation is critical to maintaining the integrity and scope of the database – all input is encouraged! Users of mindat.org range from novices just becoming interested in the world of minerals to those engaged professionally. All levels of expertise are welcome to participate on mindat.org - everybody is still learning more about mineralogy! See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_409#Is_Mindat.org_reliable? Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the reference as it is not that important. TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 16:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Removed it. As for the other sources, the dead one can be replaced with a similar one and I am not sure if the palaobdb one is really user generated. The mindat one can be replaced with an irmng or itis source. TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 16:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]