Talk:Sea anemone/GA1

GA Review

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

I'll take on this one. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• The threats section includes 'Use by humans' which sits rather uncomfortably in the section.

Renamed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• The threat discussion wanders off course with "and could also negatively affect anemone shrimp, and any organisms obligately associated with sea anemones. Anemonefish can survive alone in captivity, as has been shown by multiple research efforts." Some of this could be salvaged by reorganising ("Impact" or something) but it's basically very close to being off-topic.

The section was originally called "Exploitation", was three times longer and a POV problem. I cut it down and have now trimmed some more and renamed the section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

(2) and (3) Mackenzia, Middle Cambrian

• There is a photo of Mackenzia on Commons, wrongly labelled as a holothurian.

I couldn't find it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

How odd, a straight search for Mackenzia on Commons gets it at once. Here it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I suppose I did find it but it is difficult to interpret and I was unimpressed. If I used it I could caption it "Sea anemones do not fossilize well, having no hard parts, and this one was mistakenly identified as a sea cucumber." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

In a way that's the point. I'd say it was well worth using. We can of course crop the image down to the relevant bit(s) if you like. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• A few species are pelagic. So they're not attached to anything? Intriguing, please explain and give example.

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

And taken away again as I find the pelagic sea anemone that was mentioned was in fact a tube-dwelling anemone in the order Ceriantharia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• For "symbiosis" I think you mean mutualism (biology), though the claim has I believe been disputed (is it just commensalism, etc).

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• The thing that really is surely a mutualistic relationship is currently in Feeding and diet, the endosymbiosis with algae. Some reorg needed.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure that Haeckel's rather biased image is a fair representation of diversity; maybe tweak the caption.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• That's a truly unclear anatomy diagram, made worse by the choice of colours and the labels which are at once vague (not reaching their targets) and intrusive (with heavy and unnecessary arrowheads).

I thought it was rather good! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Ouch.

• The Taxonomy section is conspicuously lacking a cladogram (or indeed two of them, external and internal relationships). At least an external one is needed: I can draw it for you if you point me to a suitable source.

I find taxonomy difficult, and I have hardly touched the section. With regard to cladograms, I have never created one, but there is one that could be used for guidance in Anthozoa, referenced to Stampar. For the internal relationships, Rodriguez 2014 would be best. If you feel like doing them, that would be splendid. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Added an external one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• The table is currently cited only to Carlgren 1949, I take it that Rodriguez 2014 applies?

Thanks for taking this on. I will return to it tomorrow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Chiswick Chap: Thank you for adding the cladogram and the fossil image which both make quite an improvement. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)