Talk:Chrompodellid/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Snoteleks (talk · contribs) 13:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Reconrabbit 21:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Prose

Lead

Y Adequately summarizes all the major points within the article.

Description and life cycle

• They present genetic sequences of non-photosynthetic plastids, an evidence of their phototroph ancestry.[8] "Evidence" is an uncountable noun, so "an" should be removed, though it might make the structure of the sentence awkward. Could be refactored.

Removed the "an". In my native language it is a countable noun, so I never noticed.

• They contain one chloroplast in each cell,[8] with chlorophyll a as their only chlorophyll,[12] violaxanthin, and β-carotene.[8] Is chlorophyll a their only chlorophyll, their only violaxanthon, and their only β-carotene, or are the latter two distinct things that are also present in the cell or present in the chloroplast?

The latter two are distinct things that are also present in the chloroplast. I removed the "their onyl chlorophyll" to avoid confusion.

Evolution

Y

Systematics

• Although the inclusion of colpodellids within apicomplexans was not supported by other authors, phylogenetic studies demonstrated that they were sister clades.[17] I might be missing something here, but isn't Apicomplexa a phylum and Colpodellida a clade? Better described as "sister groups" as is done in the source.

The term "clade" applies to both, because "clade" just means that the group is monophyletic. In this case, the phylum Apicomplexa is also a clade. In addition, "sister groups" is a synonym of "sister clades".

That's a useful distinction, than you for clarifying!

References

Well cited. Only missing citations are under "Classification" for Alphamonas and Colpodellaceae, but I see these are summarized in [3].

Source checks

Referring to this version:

• [1] Y
• [3] Y
• [7] Y
• [10] Y
• [11] Y
• [14] Y
• [17] Y
• [18] Y
• [19] Y

Layout

Y

Copyright violations

None found through Earwig.

Broadness, focus, neutrality and stability

• Article is up to date and broadly covers both description and systematics of the clade, while going into detail on various events in classification history.
• Statements of opinion/perspective are attributed to their authors, no POV skew noted.
• Not a contentious topic and hasn't been subject to disruption recently.

Images

Only one image, but it is properly licensed, attributed, and represents a member of this clade.

Summary comments

I didn't forget! Working through the later criteris now and will continue in the morning. Reconrabbit 01:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Snoteleks I've finished reviewing; just waiting to hear back on the ambiguous prose points above in Description and life style and Systematics.

@Reconrabbit: Hey, thank you for the review. I've answered your points. Let me know if you need any further changes. — Snoteleks (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks great. Thanks for your explanations above. Reconrabbit 11:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

(Non-reviewer comment) How useful is it to include red links to the carotenoids vaucheriaxanthin and isofucoxanthin? The latter doesn't seem to have much documentation in literature due to the prevalence of fucoxanthin. Reconrabbit 14:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit Red links in general allow people to see what content is still absent in Wikipedia and is supposed to encourage them to fill in the gaps of knowledge. However it is true that perhaps isofucoxanthin is the same as fucoxanthin, I haven't delved that deep. — Snoteleks (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I can see the validity of including links to Chilovora, percolomonads, and the other taxa that haven't been created yet. It's just that these compounds seem less likely to be filled (and I've been discouraged from including red links in reviews of my GAs in the past, though this may just be reviewer preference). Reconrabbit 15:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit: Do you mind taking over? I don't think I can provide a review. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Do you want me to change the "reviewer" heading? I can start on this in a bit. Reconrabbit 17:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes please. I'm extremely busy. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 21:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit I think it is a preference, other times I've heard the opposite. It's always more important that the links are relevant, though — Snoteleks (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.