Talk:Bacterial motility/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 17:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Delighted to see a serious article on a major topic. It's fluently written and plentifully cited, so the usual problems don't apply.

Organisation

• The overall plan - lead, background, modes of locomotion, taxis, other stuff - works well and needs little improvement.

• However, the chapter "The bacterial flagella" (should be "flagellum") elides the other means employed; the chapter should be called something like "Mechanisms" (or some such word), and it should have subsections for "Flagellum", "Pili", and "Other" (or something) to account for the gliding machinery, whatever that is.

• Done.

• The last 4 sections come across as a bit of a ragbag. "Motility as a biosignature" and "Mathematical modelling" could both be included in a "Research methods" chapter at the end of the article (i.e. the final section); or we could have both of those together with "Biohybrid microswimmers" in an "Interactions with humans" (or whatever) section.

• Done, microswimmers and biosignature have both been deleted.

• I understand why you've left "Escape response" out of the Taxis chapter, it's only partly directed, but it still comes across as a bit disorganised being placed alone at the end. As it is part of the discussion of directed motion, I think it would in fact fit fine in the Taxis chapter, with a first sentence explaining that this was something only partially directed, but...

• Done.

Biohybrid microswimmers

• The "Biohybrid microswimmers" section feels a bit WP:UNDUE in length - the topic is not directly about bacterial motility at all - and since there is already a MAIN link to a subsidiary article, I think we should cut the section down to a short summary (1 or 2 paragraphs) based on the lead section of the Biohybrid microswimmer article, together with the key citations from there.

• Gone.

Motility as a biosignature

• "Motility as a biosignature" also feels a bit out of place: after all, it doesn't only concern bacteria. Perhaps the whole thing should be moved to Directed motion where it may fit better, perhaps as a subsidiary article, and it could be summarized here in a short paragraph with "main" link.

• Gone.

• There is an excessive amount of detail that talks about "the image on the right" - the phrase doesn't work as the image won't be in that place on mobile devices, and of course editors may reposition the image. I think we should probably lose the image and the five paragraphs about it from this article; if not, the material should be radically cut down as it's only marginally on the topic of bacteria and their motility.

• Gone.

Summary

This article is in a good state and will need little work to reach GA standard. Main concern is the article's focus (3B).

• Chiswick Chap - done this far. — Epipelagic (talk) 05:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• It's a GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)