Talk:Bryozoa/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I will begin reviewing this article and make straightforward changes as I go (explanations in edit summaries). Please revert any changes I make where I inadvertently change the meaning. I will post queries below. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any notable species? I think giving the names of two species (the endangered on and the pest) in the lead is more exacting.
As Bryozoa is one of the "minor phyla" I suspect species names are not well-known to non-specialist professional zoologists! Hence I think "In Thailand, many populations of one freshwater species ..." and "A fast-growing invasive bryozoan off the ..." are more informative and I would not want to scrap those phrases. I not feel that adding the species names would make the lead much more informative, considering lead lengths are always under pressure. --Philcha (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
fair enough. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Nitsche should have first name and who/what he is (American taxonomist or whatever).
At expense I've found the only high-quality ref on his full name, "Remarks on Dr. Nitsche's Researches on Bryozoa. By Professor Smitt", Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science 1872 s2-12: 246-248 (journal now published as Journal of Cell Science - mosty other professional sources give surname only, a few give "Nitsche, H." and his dates. Wrote in German, but national unknown and murky, as it was in the years leading to Unification of Germany. Name of professioal speciality unknown.
Added forename "Hinrich" [sic]. Do you want a ref for the guy's full name - it would be a mini-essay on bibliographical archeology, not the usual cookie-cutter citation. --Philcha (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
that's fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I moved the Classification and diversity section to become a subsection of taxonomy. The whole first paragraph is a much more precise explanation of the rather vague description of the ecto-/endoprocta in the section above. This whole para should be moved into and replace part of the first para of taxonomy section. If you'd rather I did it I will. never mind, done now
The basic shape of the "crown" is a full circle. - would 'ring' be more apt here?
"crown" is better because the ring is just the foundation for the tentacles, which do the real work. OTOH if you can think for a snappy alternative that would be great, as "crown" can be ambiguous - the fanciest crowns with cross-bars over the top would be inappropriate. --Philcha (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
circlet is the type I have in mind, but do you think that's well-known enough to non-specialist readers (of bryozoa or crowns or both)? --Philcha (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
What I meant was "The basic shape of the "crown" is a ring". (i.e circle with the middle missing.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I perhaps I now understand what you were getting at. I specifically wrote "full circle" because the conventional description of the lophophore of Phylactolaemata is "U-shaped" or "horseshoe-shape", but this is ambiguous. The basic shape of brachiopod lophophores is "U-shaped" or "horseshoe-shape" in the sense of having actual ends. In phylactolaemate bryozoans, the tentacles run round the inner as well as the outer edge, with a gap between the outer and inner edges except where they join at the tips of the "horseshoe". In others words the phylactolaemate is actually a single continuous ring with a deep dent in the circumference, as in the large pic in the centre of the collage at File:Haeckel Bryozoa.jpg. --Philcha (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Would be a good idea to maybe look on flickr for some more images. I slotted in the same image for Membranipora membranacea but this has been used on two pages so far and it would be nice to find some different ones.
Never tried flickr. What's the copyright situation? --Philcha (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
As with the classification section moving up, really the whole evolution section should too - fascinating and quite convoluted at times. This allows a more coherent presentation of taxonomy and evolution which are intricately linked, and some material which is reduplicated can be removed (much like I just did in the classification bit). I am comparing structure with the bird article.
Sorry, I seriously agreedisagree with moving the class and orders up. Bryozoan are virtually unknown to non-specialist readers, and I think the lower taxa are meaningless until the key features have already been explained - e.g. "epistome", "operculum", "membranous sac", "Autozooids", "heterozooids", "Stolons". --Philcha (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
OTOH the "Naming" section (as was) should be at the top, as a warning of the issues about the name of the phylum. --Philcha (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I presume you mean seriously disagree? (sigh) these pages are often tricky like this. I have another idea which might help, so watch the diffs and see what you think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Update: okay, now the page has four big sections which divide nicely into subsections, and some of the evolution/classification duplication can be melded nicely. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
You're determined to get classification early! However, I thought carefully about the structure and order befor enominating this article.
  • The "Naming" section (as was) should be at the top, as a warning of the issues about the name. Zoologists have got into a muddle about naming this phylum.
  • Taxonomy is a convenient way of summarising groupings of features and of providing species counts. It should follow all the features, so that readers have all the bits of the jigsaw puzzle.
  • The typical "Taxonomy" section has little to do with evolution, especially in the lophotrochozoan "phyla" - cladistics, and especially molecular phylogeny, has often shredded Linnean taxonomy, leaving only a collection of convenient of labels. The structure I had before the review has working fairly well in several phyla (e.g. Annelida also destructs traditional taxonomy), and adapts well to cases where traditional taxonomy has been rewritten by cladistics. In the case of "Bryozoa" cladistics has questioning the traditional taxonomy in several ways.
I'm really sorry for being so blunt, but it would have been much better to ask questions than to charge in and restructure an article in which you've done little research. --Philcha (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yeah, I guess I could have discussed it first, but let's try and work towards something here - classification isn't early now. Having worked on a great many articles like these, the choice is either a description section (and subsections) first, or naming/taxonomy/classification/evolution section first. Usually the latter section is not so big, as it is generally a good idea to get the description close to the top (I had this problem in lion too), and I agree with you that it is important as most people are familiar with the term Bryozoa but likely haven't a clue what they are.

Looking back at this version, you have intimately linked material hived off into three sections - (1, 4 and 10). One can see they are linked as you've had to repeat yourself in each to link them. Cladistics by definition is intimately linked to evolution, and (as a way of classifying organisms) is intimately linked to Linnaean taxonomy, even if its conclusions are markedly different. Thus placing the two next to each other is is critical to understanding.

Ditto the naming issue, it looks very awkward discussing it in isolation, and then having to revisit the issue down the page in your version. Furthermore, the naming issue is more of interest to zoologists than the general public - it really doesn't hit the public radar. This is also where the benefit of a comprehensive lead comes in - the lead flags that there is an issue with the name which readers can read about in the article.

Don't you think with the sections it is alot more cohesive now. We can ask around some other folks who are familiar with more general TOL material. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: Have notified WP:TOL and content noticeboards. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

My main priority is to explain how the critters tick - especially in "minor phyla" like Bryozoa, where even professional zoologists who are non-specialists have relatively little knowledge (see a real specialist's complaint "Attempts to reconstruct the family tree of animals have largely ignored ectoprocts and other "minor phyla", which have received little scientific study ...").
From that perspective I regard the Linnean taxonomy as just an expository tool. Apart from the "spotters' guide" in the "Summary of distinguishing features" table (which I've found increasingly useful as another expository tool), "Description" esentially defines a toolkit. "Classification and diversity" identifies arrangements of subsets of the toolkit that are found in real life (classes, orders), and diversity fits there conveniently as species counts are almost always arranged in the Linnean taxonomy. "Classification and diversity" defines names that can then be used in explaining the variations in living processes like feeding, respiration, reproduction and ecology (as opposed to the static specimens in "Description").
That's why I'd still place "Fossil record" and "Evolutionary family tree" (aka phylogeny) towards the end, to avoid breaking up the account of living animals. I actually got into zoology articles from my interest in paleontology, so I enjoy phylogeny. But for the non-specialist reader a coherent of the living animals work is top priority - and in fact I got into phyla because my ignorance of the living animals was an increasing obstacle in paleontological articles (Halwaxiid was the breaking point).
In Bryozoa the "Evolutionary family tree" section is (even) more contentious than in other phyla I've worked on, which is another reason for placing phylogeny last - it's the first phyla for which I thought it imprudent to offer a cladogram, and I like cladograms because that's what's used in paleontology.
I place "Fossil record" just before "Evolutionary family tree" - partly just as a part of standard structure, but in some cases the phylogeny is strongly influenced by the fossil record (especially at Arthropod).
Does that explain my approach to the structure? --Philcha (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
What I do find fascinating is how differing importance and subject matter impact on attempts at a standard layout for articles, given my experience with birds, fungi, plants, dinosaurs and mammals. With these critters, I agree that there are substantial differences again, and interesting ones - eg the public's unfamiliarity with what they actually are, and how classification is much more tied up with issues such as fossil record, alot of conjecture and politics of lack of focus on lower-order animals vs vertebrates as well as standard Linnaean vs cladistic taxonomy. And my feeling is the last is so entwined that it is best treated as a whole. By placing Description above it, one gives the readers a chance to see "what makes them tick". I did wonder whether placing the whole section on Behaviour might be good to segue straight after description, as as they are colony-forming it makes sense to link the two closely. This then leaves classification and fossils more towards the end. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
You're dead right about "how differing importance and subject matter impact on attempts at a standard layout for articles" - for example dinos and most other vertebrates are easy because you can quite a lot of prior knowledge in readers. The other impact I've felt is taxonomic / phylogenic level - for species, genera and families editors tend to omit the basic zoology and spend more effort on "spotters' guides" (no snobbery here, what's the difference between X & Y is important). With phyla I've edited, each phyla has a different set of issues to be handled, often fairly early - how to define Mollusc, how Annelida has taken over 3 (or 4?) other former phyla, starting with a model organism and then into other sub-groups at Mollusc and Ctenophore, how some phyla have clear themes (the LEGO aspects of Arthropod, and how waterflow mechanisms and tranformations of cell type almost define Sponge), while others are hard to make coherent (Flatworm was a struggle). --Philcha (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Re "Behaviour":
  • I'm not comfortable about the title, and considered "Vital processes" (so 19th cent!). In e.g. a bird species, "Behaviour" is right because the article takes for granted digestive, respiratory and reproductive biology. But these are very important at the phylum level.
It's easier to present "Behaviour" / "Vital processes" after "Classification and diversity", especially if you look "Reproduction". Some of the specialised features are peculiar to phylactolaemates, but that's easily paraphrased as "the freshwater ones". OTOH "Some gymnolaemate species produce cyphonautes larvae ..." works much more smoothly if "Classification" has already explained "gymnolaemate ". --Philcha (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I flipped back...how about Physiology to replace behaviour, as it is more chemical-ly with these critters than birds anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
"Physiology" might stick - that would be a first :-) --Philcha (talk) 08:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
PS: Haven't forgotten about images - some uploaders will have "some rights reserved" rather than "all rights reserved" for images there, and if they allow commercial use then they have been picked up and transferred to commons by commons editors. Will ask someone who is more experienced at this. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I looked at Commons a while ago, and then a days or so ago. Most are fossil photos. Want I'd really love will be a couple more diagrams. I tried Graphic Labs but they couldn't produce one on the sub-topic I wanted, and simply suggested a pretty but IMO less clear diagram equivalent to a daub I produced. In fact a good half of the phyla I've worked on rely on my attempts at functional anatomy. --Philcha (talk) 08:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:
Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  • Images need WP:ALT text. not a biggie for GA so wil pass it now.

Interesting read, great topic to work up as loads of the invertebrate articles are underdone on wiki. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)