Thanks for the tip about wikipedia! That’s encouraging. Have you had issues with pushback if the information gets too granular? For example, listing different lookalikes in different locations or different fieldmarks that are different in different sexes/populations/subspecies etc.?
I think adding more of those will definitely be an improvement and help it make more sense why iNat links to wikipedia as the primary description, but I worry that for longer articles the ID info will be totally buried. Sadly a lot of taxa have stub or nonexistent articles, so adding the ID info will be right there near the top of the page. But for articles like “Red-tailed Hawk” they are already so lengthy, and the description section already so long, that it’s essentially useless to an iNat user trying to make an ID. It does mention the belly band, a key mark that often distinguishes it from lookalikes in its range, but you have to wade through a ton of info to get there, and even then, it’s not very clear how to use it diagnostically or if it’s even unique to the species.
This is why I would still advocate for moving an identification box to the top of the taxon page above the wikipedia description, if we ever get a system for that rolling. It could even be based on subsetting from the wikipedia article, but my worry is that people (including myself) have the attention spans of goldfish and are used to wikipedia not having a lot of identifying info, so having the info called out in a separate box at the top of the page would go a long way towards people 1) seeing it 2) actually reading it 3) using it.