Talk:Horseshoe crab/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: RenaMoonn (talk · contribs) 18:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Mgp28 (talk · contribs) 17:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am going to review this article against the good article criteria. This is my first review so if I seem to go off the path, please let me know. Mgp28 (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Hello, I haven't yet finished the review. In particular, I plan to follow up on more of the references so my comments might change but I'm starting to share some thoughts below. I hope they are helpful. Please let me know if they're not. Mgp28 (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, your comments are definitely helpful. This is my first good article nomination so I'm in a similar position to you.

Also, am I allowed to change the article to accommodate your recommendations? RenaMoonn (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, from other reviews I've looked at I think that's common. Do you want to let me know when you've made changes and I'll go through the article again? Mgp28 (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will add further comments below. I will let you know when I have finished adding comments. Mgp28 (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well written?

The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct

The sentence This contrasts with the lifestyle of extinct members, as some transitioned to living in freshwater could be clearer, perhaps with something like "Some extinct species of horseshoe crab lived in fresh water". Also mention the living species that lives in brackish water.
Instead of extends all back to the Ordovician, I would suggest "The earliest xiphosuran fossils date back 445 million years to the Ordovician". Then the next sentence, "Modern horseshoe crabs first appear in the fossil record approximately..."
The comment about 88 lineages -- is this 88 species?
Instead of the link to Incertae sedis, which will not be familiar to many readers, the uncertainty about genera should be explained in plain English.
Need more clarity about when breeding season is. Where is it year round? Is it only at full moon everywhere?
For reproduction, is it saying they only breed in the sand or mud in which they themselves hatched? I think this could be clearer.
Don't need "1,000,000" in brackets after "1 million"
Being arthropods... could be, "In common with all arthropods..."
In Sexual size dimorphism, I would describe the difference in size before explaining it. In this section I am left wondering how big is the difference, and don't find out until behavior and life history. I also think parts don't make sense. Point number 1 says that they have similar-size preferences in choosing a mate, but point 5 says there is no evidence of assortative mating. How can both be true?
Repetition of genome and redundancy of size in The genomes of C. rotundicauda and T. tridentatus have an unusually large genome size -- either the genomes are unusually large, or the species have unusually large genomes.

It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Lead sections

There are several points I would suggest adding to the lead:
1. An idea about how long ago they evolved in their current form, to help explain the "living fossil" statement
2. A bit more about their habitats, such as the ones that live in brackish water, and something about where they breed
3. The mention of bait, eating and harvesting blood doesn't seem to match with the article's main text. It starts occasionally used as fishing bait, whereas in the main text it sounds like measures are urgently needed because they are hunted so much. I would start with the main threat -- presumably the medical industry -- then the lesser threats can come after.
4. A mention of conservation efforts.

Layout

There is information about conservation in multiple sections, some of which repeats itself. Then it seems there is less about it in the actual Conservation status section. I suggest collating it all in one place.

Words to watch

"Nonetheless" feels like we are headed toward original research. I think the first paragraph of phylogeny could be rephrased -- I will try to come up with something clearer.
The source does not describe they immune system as "incredibly efficient". "Highly efficient" would match the source.
The word enigmatic is used in both of the sources for that sentence, but I still find it odd. Does the word have a technical meaning in this context?

Writing about fiction

Not applicable

Embedded lists

I think the section Evidence from genomic sequencing would be better as text.

verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

Several references appear repeatedly in the list, so I found I kept re-opening the same source. Some of these are for different pages. I would recommend combining all the repeated references and suggest using the {{rp}} template for different page numbers.

Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

For this section I will use the numbering of the references as they are at present.
1. Reference 4 doesn't seem to use the phrase "living fossils"
2. Reference 21 mentions morphological stability but I don't think it supports either the statement few, if any, mutations that would result in more beneficial alleles or This causes horseshoe crabs to have comparatively high rates of gene regulation, something that likely contributes to their morphological status.
3. A moratorium was restricted to male crabs in Delaware doesn't seem to be supported by the following reference

It contains no original research

I do worry that some parts are straying into original research, especially regarding genetics. Are there reviews or recent book chapters that summarize this information?

It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism

Looks good.

Is it broad in its coverage?

It addresses the main aspects of the topic

Is horseshoe crab blood used in laboratories globally? Feels US focussed.

It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Possibly too much detail about licensing of Limulus clotting factor C, but no urgent need to change that

Is it neutral?

It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

Yes.

Is it stable?

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

A lot of recent edits but mostly from the proposer. No edit wars.

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

All look good

Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

The image showing the difference between male and female horseshoe crabs needs to describe which is the male and which is the female in the caption.

Mgp28 (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea on the pedipalp pic, went ahead and changed it RenaMoonn (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mgp28 requested an experienced eye to give feedback on the review. In general, the review of a high quality :). You are right that reviews include a period of improvements by the nominators in response to comments. This should typically take around 7 days, but can sometimes take longer if necessary. A couple of things I would do differently:

When you spot check references, it's good practice to say how many references you've checked. If you check 3 sources, and all three have errors, there may be a systemic problem with the article and it may need to be failed. If you check 30 sources and 3 have errors, that can be fixed during the review.
The original research concerns refer to the instances of failed verification you found, right? If not, can you expand on it?
I would be stricter on making the article accessible to a wider public. For instance, "establish processes for evaluating alternative pyrogenicity tests and report back [to the Senate] on steps taken to increase their use" is overly technical, and it's unclear how it connects with the previous sentences. Ideally, quotes are used sparingly, mostly for creative outburst, not things that are easily paraphrased.
Usually reviews will contain slightly more prose suggestions for an article this size.

Overall, well done :). Let me know if either of you have any specific questions. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]