Talk:Sipuncula/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 16:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Starting soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking it on. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- The first species of this phylum was described in 1827 by the French zoologist Henri Marie Ducrotay de Blainville – but the taxonbox states that the phylum was already described by "Rafinesque, 1814"; how does this fit together, and why not mention it?
- A species description is a detailed description of the type specimen and should be able to differentiate this species from others by means of the fine detail. My guess is that Rafinesque coined a name for the group in 1814 without going in to the fine detail. In fact WoRMS does not mention him at all, and I could remove his name from the taxobox. (It was there before I started working on the article.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hm, that seems to be the official authority for the name though, and not mentioning it is a relatively large hole in my opinion. I would not consider it strictly necessary for reaching GA, but if anything can be done that would be nice. This seems to be his original mention, maybe just add a sentence that he established the name and cite that work? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- The history section came from a book source but was rubbish. I have removed it, and rewritten the taxonomy section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hm, that seems to be the official authority for the name though, and not mentioning it is a relatively large hole in my opinion. I would not consider it strictly necessary for reaching GA, but if anything can be done that would be nice. This seems to be his original mention, maybe just add a sentence that he established the name and cite that work? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- A species description is a detailed description of the type specimen and should be able to differentiate this species from others by means of the fine detail. My guess is that Rafinesque coined a name for the group in 1814 without going in to the fine detail. In fact WoRMS does not mention him at all, and I could remove his name from the taxobox. (It was there before I started working on the article.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I would try to explain and link terminology more thoroughly. Some terms, like "anterior", may be even avoided altogether. Examples include:
- non-ciliated epidermis overlain by a cuticle – terms should be linked. Cilium is linked further down, but should be at first mention.
- non-chitinous
- double helix
- extra-cellular
- haemocytes, granulocytes
- ciliated urn cells
- bipolar sensory cells
- fauveliopsid
- A related species was later described as – when was it described? Date would be nice.
- The specimen was provided by a friend of his, Professor Mackintosh. – Is his full name not known? If so, maybe formulate it in a way to make this clear. We usually do not add honorary titles.
- but have a separate system from that of the rest of the introvert – system of what kind? It would really be helpful to have a word before "system" to make it more specific.
- tentacles form a crown – what precisely is meant with crown, maybe explain a bit more for clarity? I can guess, but I still wonder how tentacles would look like that do not form a crown.
- Hooks are often present near the mouth on the introvert – is the function of these hooks known?
- The tentacles at the tip of the introvert – is this referring to all tentacles? If not, how do the other tentacles differ?
- possess epidermal structures modified for boring into rock; the anal shield is near the anteriorly located – what is the link between boring and anal shield?
- what is the anal shield? – What is an anal shield after all? It becomes a bit clearer later, but it would really be helpful to have a short definition at first mention.
- interstitial fluid – is same as coelomic fluid? It could really go well with more explanation.
- ultrafiltration – the wikilink appears not to lead to the desired article, its only about the medical condition. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think I have dealt with all these points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Although typically less than 10 cm long, some sipunculans may reach several times that length. – Maybe better place this info within the the description section? Maybe also add the smallest and largest species, if this info is available.
- are sensitive to salinity, and thus not commonly found near estuaries – but estuaries would mean less salinity? Maybe "sensitive to changes in salinity" or "sensitive to decreases in salinity" would be more precise?
- They are especially common below the surface of the sediment on tidal flats. – Any numbers here? Any case studies? Specimens per square meters? Might be interesting, just to get an idea.
- has only been detected in – I suggest "observed" instead of "detected".
- crown group – also could be linked.
- An unnamed sipunculid worm has been discovered in the Burgess Shale in Alberta, Canada, and Lecthaylus has been identified from the Granton Shrimp Bed, Edinburgh dating to the Silurian period. –
but Burgess Shale is Cambrian, should be mentioned.
- the Granton Shrimp Bed, Edinburgh dating – but not precisely in Edinburgh, is it? Maybe say "Scotland", "or near Edinburgh, Scotland"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- These points dealt with. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, and congrats for the GA. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, and congrats for the GA. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- These points dealt with. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)