From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
June 16, 2014 Good article reassessment Kept
WikiProject Animals (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Gastrotrich 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 19:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Definitely an important topic- I'm happy to offer a review. J Milburn (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I feel that the word "gastrotrich" (I'm assuming it's a common noun), as opposed to "Gastrotricha", should appear on the first line. I'm assuming this is the name by which they are most commonly known, in the same way animals in the phylum Arthropoda are commonly called arthropods?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "interstitially" is a bit jargony for the lead when unlinked
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "while terrestrial species" The sentence prior implied that these were all water-based?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "They are hermaphrodites, mostly producing eggs which develop directly into miniature adults, but some producing young by parthenogenesis and at least one species being viviparous." This sentence is a little difficult to follow.
Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "The common name "hairy back" apparently arises from a mistranslation of "gastrotrich" with a better common name for all gastrotrichs being "hairy belly", as this refers to the cilia present in most species on the ventral surface. The term "hairy back" should be limited to the large genus Chaetonotus, whose members usually have dorsal surfaces covered with hair-like spines." This is apparently all unsourced.
Mostly removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The taxonomy section would benefit from a comment about who first described the phylum.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd love a taxogram, or, failing that, at least a list of the orders and families (with suborders if appropriate and genera if possible); see Carnivora#Classification, for example. This perhaps isn't necessary for GAC, but it'd certainly be worth the effort!
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "There are also ciliated pits on the head" It's not clear to me what this means.
Nor me! The source mentions them and distinguishes them from the photoreceptor cells. I removed a statement that was in the article before I started on it and was not mentioned in Invertebrate Zoology. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Photoreceptor is dablink and I'm unclear on how to direct it. What's the difference between a photoreceptor and a photosensitive cell, which you mention in the next line?
See previous reply. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "In freshwater they may reach a density of 158 individuals per 10 cm2 (1.6 sq in) and are the fifth most abundant group.[5]" After what? Also, how common are they in soil?
More information added. I know nothing about gastrotrichs in the soil. One source says "Reference to the ecology of gastrotrichs in terrestrial litter has been made by Varga (1959)". I have been unable to consult Varga as the references are not available for the Google book concerned. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • In the second paragraph of "Behaviour", are you talking about genera? It's a little confusing that you suddenly start talking about just three. It also feels a little technical.
Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "the ancestral plan" What does this mean? It sounds unpleasantly teleological...
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "There is generally a single pair of gonads, the anterior portion of which contains sperm-producing cells and the posterior portion producing ova." When you say "portion", do you mean an individual gonad?
It seems that each individual gonad is capable of producing sperm at the anterior end and ova at the posterior end. From reading elsewhere, it seems there is only one end functioning at a time so the animal functions alternately as a male and female. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "released by rupture of the body wall" Does this kill the animal?
No. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • " Fertilisation is internal, and the eggs are released by rupture of the body wall. Cleavage is bilateral and determinate. At least one species is viviparous" This is a little snappy- it could be a little more prosaic.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • You could rename "Reproduction" to "Reproduction and lifespan" and include details about the lifespan (which is in the lead but not sourced) and the eutely point.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The first is by Antonio Todaro who has published on the subject and is used by WoRMS to "oversee" the gastrotrichs. I have replaced the second. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • More pictures would be great, if we have any. There are a couple more here?
Two added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Really interesting topic; the article's in a great shape. J Milburn (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on this review. I will get to work on the points you raise tomorrow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, after some consideration, I'm going to go ahead and promote. The article still contains some claims that are rather difficult to follow, but I appreciate that this is a difficult topic. I do feel that this article provides a strong overview, answering key questions about the topic, and the sources are appropriate for an article of this level. Good work. J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the review. When you say the "article still contains some claims that are rather difficult to follow", what exactly do you mean? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The "cilliated pits" thing still throws me. The movement section is rather difficult to follow, as is the thing about terrestrial species. The article does seem very good; you may want to consider trying to find someone with some expertise in the area to have a look over the text- Sasata's a microbiologist, so he will likely have some familiarity with the literature and terminology. J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)