|Syncaris pacifica was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
Review: May 6, 2007.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from Syncaris pacifica appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 19 March 2007. The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
Importance stems from this species as a California endemic with very narrow range. Also the species is a Federally listed endangered species and is the only freshwater shrimp in California. It has been instrumental in delaying/modifying/defeating a number of land development proposals in California. Its habitat is in a region of high visibility and visitation for tourists to California. Anlace 00:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
GA Review on Hold
The article is very nicely written, and is very close to good article status. I believe the following needs to be done before the article can achieve good article status.
- Factually accurate: The article does contain numerous references, unfortunately some statements remain unreferenced eg: most of Syncaris_pacifica#Morphology. (more line notes now added} per notes below
- Broad in coverage: - Passed, but see minor recommendation
- Well written: The article is very well written. The prose works well and is certainly very close to good article status. - Passed
- NPOV: The article is written in a neutral fashion. Nice work. - Passed
- Stable: The article appears stable and not subject to editorial disputes. - Passed
- Images: Images given are fine. - Passed
1.Coverage is a little short, though acceptably so. If available information on environmental conditions (water chemistry etc) is available it should be added. Lifespan? Captive breeding?
- Added best surmise of lifespan from family members study. Also added another cite. No info found in literature on captive breeding. No definitive info on water chemistry found. (we just dont know several things about this critter.) More citation sources and line notes have now been added. Anlace 04:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
2.master of camouflage. Sounds a little lay to me.
- Passage has been rewritten. Anlace 03:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
3.I'd recommend this Roe: "comparisons of specimens of Syncaris pacifica from various drainages revealed the presence of multiple mitochondrial haplotypes" be replaced with a more reader-friendly synthesis. Mutiple mitochondrial haplotypes wont mean much to many readers.
- Passage totally rewritten to be digested by broader set of readers. Anlace 04:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
4.I'd recommend the following direct quote be re-written and attributed, rather than quoted directly According to Serpa, "California freshwater shrimp are detritus feeders, feeding on the buffet of small, diverse particles brought downstream to their pools by the current. As the water slows, the particles are filtered out by the exposed roots and other vegetation. The shrimp simply brush up the food with tufts at the ends of their small claws, and lift the collected morsels to their mouths. Colonized by algae, bacteria, fungi, and microscopic animals, the particles are more nutritious than they seem. Although shrimp usually walk slowly about the roots as they feed, these crustaceans will undertake short swims to obtain particularly tasty items."
- This direct quote has been totally rewritten and attributed. I think the text is now more compelling. good suggestion by Midgley. Anlace 04:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
All in all a nice effort, I hope the minor amendments can be made so it can be passed as a good article. MidgleyDJ 02:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thoughtful and constructive review Midgley. I have tried to respond to each point. The article is now a bit longer, has some new sources and a number of additional line notes. Regards. Anlace 05:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Passed GA Review
I've passed the article as a good article. Well done addressing the concerns, I think the article is better for it. MidgleyDJ 05:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
What does this mean:
These crustaceans disguise themselves on submerged detritus in microhabitats characterized by shallow pools; S. pacifica can alternatively swim or walk. This decapod is often found among exposed living tree roots, especially common riparian species such as willows and alders of undercut banks, overhanging woody debris, or overhanging vegetation.
If you say two contradictory things, they have to be tied together in a way that explains the contradiction. Please correct this. KP Botany 08:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see the contradiction — can you explain? --Stemonitis 06:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see the contradiction either. Anlace 00:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- So, "submerged" means "exposed?" What precisely do you mean by this aquatic organism is found among "exposed living tree roots?" I assume you and the original author mean tree roots that are under water but not covered by soil. But this is not precisely clear and these two terms, "submerged" and "exposed" can appear to mean two contradictory things, namely that in the second instance the roots are "exposed" from the water. In addition, when you copy directly from a source in this manner, you should put precise words such as this in quotation mark, particularly if you don't seem to have looked much at their meaning. A consideration of understanding by the Wikipedia reader could be gained by reading through what is written, rewriting the words of other researchers as a comprehensive whole, rather than taking words here and there, and making a single concentrated edit. KP Botany 00:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like information to be accurately reported from the references cited. I am concerned about how the information in this article has been taken from sources without a clear representation or possibly without a clear understanding of what is being said. For example:
"Genetic studies have been conducted to compare specimens of Syncaris pacifica from various drainages, with the results showing a variety of well-defined genetic variations within these populations."
What the study says is:
"Genetic comparison of this new population (of another species) to known populations of P. alabamae revealed significant genetic differences and indicate an absence of gene flow between these populations. Similarly, genetic comparisons of specimens of Syncaris pacifica from various drainages revealed the presence of multiple mitochondrial haplotypes."
Precisely, this does not have to mean that there is a "variety of well-defined genetic variations within these populations," but rather can mean that "within these populations" there appears to not be much gene flow among the populations in the various streams. The implication of the article's sentence places emphasis on genetic variations within the populations, but the research this statement is based upon appears to be clearly emphasizing the lack of gene flow between the various stream populations, rather than any great amount of genetic diversity in these organisms. Genetic diversity means something rather different from active speciation when dealing with the ecology of an endangered species.
I believe that this article needs some work done before it can continue to be rated a Good Article. In particular, the prose is not clear and well-written in many places, such as, "a variety of well-defined genetic variations." It is not factually accurate in that its interpretation of the research cited does not appear to be directed to the relevance of the cited research, in part because it is not clearly written. Gathering this information from the professor's research papers rather than simply his lab information page might make it clearer to the editor and, ultimately, to the reader.
Please correct this, and write clearly on all issues in a way that shows an understanding of the research on this organism as opposed to simply copying words from the references. KP Botany 21:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- This article has been nominated for delisting as a good article at Good Article Review. Please contribute to the review and discussion. ChicagoPimp 01:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- The article had already been delisted before nomination. Discussion removed from GA/R. If it is believed that this article has addressed all issues and meets GA criteria and can be renominated.