Jump to content

Talk:Eukaryote/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 16:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Alright I'm going to start working on the prose for this one. Will probably be scattershot so I'm just going to update the GAN review whenever I finish the readthrough of a section; feel free to start on changes or wait until the review is complete, whichever you prefer. Fritzmann (message me) 16:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

[edit]

As organisms

[edit]
  • Is there a reason this section has a single subsection? Could it just be renamed to "Overview" or something like "Diversity"?
    • Good idea, done.
  • Prose in this section is clear, concise, and provides a highly informative overview
    • Noted.

Distinguishing features

[edit]
  • Again, not super familiar with this, but would a mention of multinucleate organisms/cells be appropriate here? The section implies they only ever have a nucleus
    • Edited.
  • "It includes the rough endoplasmic reticulum where ribosomes are attached to synthesize proteins" makes it sound like the ribosomes are joined together to create proteins. Perhaps "which is covered in ribosomes that synthesize proteins," although I'm not sure of the biological accuracy of that exact wording
    • Edited.
  • Are specialist vesicles like lysosomes present in all eukaryotes? Or do different lineages have different kinds of specialist vesicles?
    • They are widespread. I'm wary of words like all as there only has to be 1 weird exception somewhere.
  • I appreciate the inclusion of the popular "powerhouse of the cell" cliche, it is certainly widespread enough to be notable
    • Yes, it's pretty accurate too.
  • "for its function providing energy by oxidising sugars or fats to produce the energy store ATP" could use tightening up, for instance "the energy-storing molecule ATP"
    • Done.
  • It is worth it to at least mention eukaryogenesis here? Readers might not get all the way to the end of the article and might want to know the basics of why mitochondrial DNA is similar to bacterial DNA
    • Glossed.
  • I think the elaboration on the iron-sulfur protein pathway may be a bit in-depth here and could be trimmed down some
    • Removed.
  • Also, if only mitochondria-like organelles are found in the metamonads, is it appropriate to say that Monocercomonoides is the only eukaryote to lack mitochondria?
    • Removed, enough on metamonads already.
  • The brief explanation of how plastids developed from endosymbiosis is similar to what I think should be included in the mitochondria section
    • Have glossed.
  • The microfilament paragraph might need a rework, I know what it is made of in great detail but not what it does or its purpose
    • Done.
  • I think the input on purpose applies to the whole section on cytoskeletal structure, some elaboration on what exactly it does would be very helpful. What I remember from high school microbiology was that it has a role in transport and (obviously) providing structure and stability to the cell, and a summary to that effect would probably be sufficient
    • Added.
  • Perhaps moving the paragraph on flagella and cilia to the end of this section would make it flow better, with a segue like "another function of the cytoskeletal structure is..."
    • Moved it down.
  • Split the first sentence in the cell wall section
    • Done.
  • Link "overexpansion" to cytolysis or mention it in some other way?
    • Linked.
  • "linked via hemicellulosic tethers to form the cellulose-hemicellulose network, which is embedded in the pectin matrix" may be a bit much
    • Edited.
  • I know chromosome number and polyploidy are important in botany, would either concept warrant inclusion in the sexual reproduction section?
    • Not really, that' more about speciation.
  • Are there still sexual amoebae around today or am I reading correctly that they are all extinct?
    • I'd hesitate to say all; the section correctly mentions that there are asexual species, which is enough here.

Evolution

[edit]
  • unikont links back to Amorphea, is it necessary or is there possibly a better pipe direction?
    • checkY I think people want a link here, but given the updates in taxonomy there isn't a better target.
  • "disentanglement of the deep splits in the tree of life only really started with DNA sequencing" something more encyclopedic here, perhaps "only began in earnest" or something similar. I also wonder if elaboration on or rewording of "deep splits in the tree of life" is warranted, I think I understand what that means in context but I'm not certain.
    • checkY Edited.
  • "incorporates the recent proposal" how recent?
    • checkY2021.
  • Is the status of Provora definitive or only proposed?
    • checkY Comfortably definitive. Obviously everything can be revised as research progresses.
  • "Metamonada have been hard to place" why? Perhaps instead of "have been hard to" the tense could be changed to "were difficult" or "are difficult" depending on the answer to that question
    • checkY Are.
  • "and was most likely a biological population" as opposed to an individual?
    • checkY Yes.
  • "It is believed to have been a protist" this is referring to the combination of the archaean and bacterium? Perhaps "It" could be changed to something like "this last common ancestor"
    • checkY Edited.
  • I am slightly confused now with this second paragraph of Eukaryogenesis. Is the aforementioned protist the result of both of the two described endosymbiotic relationships? Is it what existed before the endosymbiosis? Were both endosymbiotic relationships independent lineages, but which had the characteristics attributed in the previous paragraph?
    • checkY Edited. No, the 2nd one gave rise to plants, as shown in both text and diagram. They are a branch of the eukaryotes.
  • Link or explain biomarkers at its first mention?
    • checkYLinked.
  • "the possible alga Grypania" possible seems ambiguous, is it possible that the genus is an algae, or is its discovery disputed
    • checkY With a fossil there is only its form to go on. Something has certainly been found; the question is always what does it mean.
  • I really like the way you handled the incertae sedis link for Diskagma
    • checkY Thanks.
  • Does Ruyang Group deserve a redlink?
    • checkY Probably best not; if someone writes the article they'll quickly link it.

Other criteria

[edit]
  • All statements are clearly referenced with inline citations
    • Noted.
  • No hints of copyvio, Earwig gives extremely low score of 5.7%
    • Noted.
  • I can't consider myself an expert, but this gave me a very solid overview of any question I could have on eukaryotes, and properly delegated further elaboration down to more specific articles. From my perspective the article is sufficiently broad
    • Thank you!
  • The article is written without giving undue weight to any research or opinion and is not unstable outside of infrequent vandalism expected of an article of this visibility
    • Noted.
  • A random sample of the images gives no copyright issues, and the article is excellently illustrated
    • Noted, thanks.

A truly important article that has been given wonderful treatment. I hope my input is not too uninformed or nitpicky. The article is in great shape and once those last small things are addressed I have no qualms about wrapping up this review and promoting it. Fritzmann (message me) 20:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you.

All changes look good, promoting to GA. Fritzmann (message me) 19:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eukaryote/GA1&oldid=1169709083"