Jump to content

Talk:Echinoderm/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Mover of molehills (talk · contribs) 12:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to getting started with this review! Mover of molehills (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the review sections:

Well-written

[edit]

I'll move through the sections and do the lede last:

Taxonomy and evolution

[edit]
  • The sentence "Along with the chordates...protostomes" is quite a run on right now and needs reorganizing. One thought I had is: "Echinoderms are bilaterians, meaning that their left and right sides are mirror images of each other. Like chordates and hemichordates, they are further classified as deuterostomes, meaning that the blastospore (the first opening to form in embryonic development) becomes the anus instead of the mouth." This could replace everything from "Along with the chordates" to "connecting the two," cutting out what seems to me to be a lot of unnecessary detail about the difference between protostomes and deuterostomes. What do you think of this? Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • What you have really helps. The sentence still feels like it has one too many clauses, though - is there any chance you could say "during the early development of the embryo, the the first opening to form" with "the first opening to form during embryo development"? Mover of molehills (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.
  • I wonder if you need the sentence "The larvae of echinoderms have bilateral symmetry....typically pentamerism." It is phrased as something of a run-on right now, and you cover all of this information later during the "Diversity" section. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed.
  • I also feel like the phrase "Early analyses gave inconsistent results, the main hypothesis being that Ophiuroidea..." could be "Historically, scientists believed that Ophiruoidea..." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • The phrase "gave the following phylogenetic tree" is kind of awkward because you don't actually give the tree until a sentence later. I would just say "revised their phylogenetic tree" the first time and change "gave the same tree" to "supported the findings of the first study" the second time. When you then present the tree, readers will assume that it is the most modern version. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • Nitpick: "A total of about" can just be "about." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nit squashed.
  • The sentences "All echinoderms are marine and nearly all are benthic" needs a better connection to the "Diversity" section. I would combine it with the next sentence by saying "All echinoderms are marine animals, but they are found in habitats ranging from shallow intertidal areas to abyssal depths." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • You don't need to say "The oldest candidate echinoderm fossil may be", since "candidate" already implies uncertainty. I would just say "The oldest candidate echinoderm fossil is." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, now you're really taking a chance on the grockle editors!
  • "It is a disc-like fossil" is vague, I would say "Arkarua fossils are disc-like, with radial ridges..." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • "However, it has" is also a vague reference. I would say "However, the fossils have no stereom..." to be clearer. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • Nitpick: "and the identification is inconclusive" should be "so the identification is inconclusive." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, ok, done, but that's a standard British usage.
      • No worries.
  • I am confused by the current wording of the sentence "This ancestral stock... such an existence." I would say "This organism adopted an attached mode of life with suggestion feeding, and soon developed radial symmetry in order to optimize its feeding success." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited, but we can't assume feeding was the reason.
  • Nitpick: "The larvae of all echinoderms are even now bilaterally symmetrical" sounds better as "Even so, the larvae of modern echinoderms are bilaterally symmetrical." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Marginal, done.
  • I'm not sure if the sentence "The starfish and crinoids... adult form" is even relevant to the topic at hand. Could you delete it or connect it somehow to fossil history? Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • "Gave rise to free-moving groups" is worded confusingly. I would say "Are believed to have gathered in free-moving groups." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited.
  • This one might need one more pass. If you say they evolved into animals able to move freely, you're not really talking about the first echinoderms at all. Could you try to phrase it so it still mentions the congregation in groups and focuses on the original animals? Mover of molehills (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does NOT mean congregation of individuals into social groups, it means evolution into later taxa (aka "groups"). I think the wording is fine now.
  • Got it. I see the confusion. I'm sorry to press this point, but I still don't understand why you're talking about what the first echinoderms evolved into when you have been talking about the echinoderms themselves. I would do one of the following: if the first echinoderms were motile, you can just say "The first echinoderms were able to move around freely" or something like it. If they were non-motile, I would make this clear by saying "The first echinoderms were non-motile, but they evolved into animals which were able to move freely." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
    • No, that's wrong!
      • Edited, "this" => orientation, and moved the "except for the crinoids" phrase away from the "reversed" (to which it never belonged). The crinoids were the only group that did not reverse.

Anatomy and physiology

[edit]
  • Wikilinked: bone A articulates with bone B, it's the relevant term of art, which is immediately explained by "to form flexible joints"; I can't be clearer than that.
  • The phrase "such as the "Aristotle's lantern" mouthparts of sea urchins used for grinding" is a bit awkward. I would say "such as the chewing organ known as "Aristotle's lantern" in sea urchins." Mover of molehills (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • The sentence "Despite the robustness...record" is hard to read as well. I would say "Although individual ossicles are fairly robust, complete skeletons of starfish, brittle stars and crinoids are rare in the fossil record." Mover of molehills (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • Nitpick: to improve flow, I would change "radial limbs, pushing the existing plates outwards" to "radial limbs while pushing the existing plates outwards" - it just removes an unnecessary clause from the sentence. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited.
  • For clarity, I think it would be worth changing "On fracturing such rock, distinctive cleavage patterns can be seen and sometimes even the intricate internal and external structure of the test" to "By fracturing such rock, paleontologists can observe distinctive cleavage patterns which reveal the internal structure of the test." Mover of molehills (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited.

More

[edit]
  • Nitpicks: "This is a network of" would be clearer as "This system is composed of fluid-filled canals" for clarity, and "derived from" should be "emanating from." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited; "derived from" does mean derivation over evolutionary time; it does not mean emanating from a current structure.
  • For concision, "aboral (upper)" could just be "upper". Mover of molehills (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, aboral is upper only when the mouth is facing downwards, which it often is, but not always; in the crinoids it faces up, for instance. i.e. the (upper) gloss is local not universal. Best as it is.
  • I think "a slender duct, the stone canal" would sound better as "a slender duck known as the "stone canal"". Mover of molehills (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding clutter like "known as" and scare quotes doesn't anybody; and many GA reviewers and copy-editors would object strenuously to their presence. The phrase is clearly in apposition to the "a slender duct" description already. In a science article, we are not obliged to be ashamed of the subject's terms of art.
  • The sentence "From this, radial canals...echinoids" doesn't give enough detail about the differences between different subclasses of echinoderms. I would say "Eventually, the ring canal branches into a series of radial canals, which lie along the arms in asteroids and adjoin to the test in echinoids." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded.
  • It would be good if the sentence "Short lateral canals...ampulla" had an appropriate sense of finality since you have just delivered a lot of information. I would say "Finally, the radial canals are divided into short lateral canals, each of which ends in an ampulla." (Note the WikiLink) Mover of molehills (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't "finally", as there are the tube feet to follow, in the next sentence. The thing that clarifies this is the diagram, so I've added mention of ring and radial canals and ampullae to the caption. I don't suppose you want to wikilink an Ancient Roman pot, by the way.
  • For concision, it would be nice if "and is most obviously expressed in the tube feet which can be extended or contracted by the redistribution of fluid between the foot and the internal sac" was "and allows the tube feet to be extended or contracted by the redistribution of internal fluid" - right now, the sentence is a bit of a run-on. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited.
  • The term "wafting motion" is a bit vague - could you use a better adjective than "wafting"? Mover of molehills (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited. The word "wafting" gives quite a good picture of what it looks like: little particles of food in the water are wafted gently along as the tube feet swish back and forth encouraging the particles in one direction without actually grasping them. I don't think we'll easily do better.
  • For clarity, it seems like "in the centre of the aboral body surface" could just be "in the centre on top of their body." Mover of molehills (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that would depend which surface was on top, and that has changed between groups and through history.
  • The listing "graze, tear and chew" seems like it is going into unnecessary detail. To shorten the sentence, could you just say "consume algae..."? Mover of molehills (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The detail is only those few words, and they describe the processes of scraping up plant material, tearing off lumps of such material instead, and chewing such lumps down into a finely-ground mush. This is strikingly different from what starfish, sea cucumbers, or crinoids get up to. The four words are doing rather a good job, I'd say.
  • Got it, the main part that I'm worried about hear is the long nature of the sentence. Could you change "algae and sometimes other animal or vegetable material" to "animals or vegetable material including algae" in order to improve the flow? Mover of molehills (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded and shortened: algae are the main things on their menu.
  • "While the ancestral condition is considered to be the possession of one genital aperture" would sound better as "While early echinoderms are believed to have had only one genital aperture." Mover of molehills (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might, but it's not necessarily the same thing. Only some of the early echinoderms were on the direct line to modern species; most others were on early side-branches which have become extinct.
  • I've done that. I wonder if we may perhaps be having a Brit/Yank thing with some of these phrasing questions.

Regeneration

[edit]
  • I agree that the regeneration powers of regeneration are remarkable, but it feels like needless editorializing. Could you say "Many echinoderms have a unique capacity for regeneration" instead? Mover of molehills (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'll not be surprised to know that "unique" is a bit of a risky term here. Let's say "great powers".
  • In the sentence "The discharged organs and tissues are regenerated over the course of several months," it would be good to clarify whether this is about sea cucumbers in particular or echinoderms in general. If it's about sea cucumbers, I would fold it in with the last sentence. Mover of molehills (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • The sentences "Sea urchins are constantly replacing spines lost through damage. Sea stars and sea lilies readily lose and regenerate their arms" come across as kind of choppy right now. Could you combine them into a single list-like sentence? Mover of molehills (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • The use of "in a few species" and then "in some species" comes across as redundant in this same sentence. I would change the second phrase to "individual, and sometimes the arms are intentionally detached for the purpose of asexual reproduction." Mover of molehills (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited.
  • The sentence "The robust larval growth is responsible for the popularity of echinoderms as model organisms in developmental biology" feels entirely irrelevant here. Could you move it or just take it out? Mover of molehills (talk)!
    • Merged to 'In research'.

Reproduction

[edit]

Larval development

[edit]
  • Given what you told me earlier, it seems like the phrase "usually known as 'pluteus' larvae" should just be "usually known as pluteus larvae". Mover of molehills (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence is specifically talking about the names here.
  • Are you sure about the phrase "At this stage the bilateral symmetry is lost"? Mathematicallly, it seems like a starfish whose arms are evenly spaced still has five lines of bilateral symmetry. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No biologist thinks of it like that, but removed anyway.
  • The sentence "There seems to be an evolutionary trend towards a "lower-risk–lower-gain" strategy of direct development" is too vague. Is it just talking about echinoderms? Animals in general? If it's just about echinoderms, I would just delete it because it essentially says the same thing as the rest of the paragraph. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gone.

Distribution and habitat

[edit]
  • "Refugia" should be linked.
    • Done.
  • This paragraph seriously overuses em dashes - I think that you should have at most one set of them in such a short passage. I would keep the first pair, either delete the phrase "sometimes accounting for up to 90% of organisms or find a way to break it up into another sentence, and then remove the qualification "that is, they live on the seafloor" - you can link the "benthic" article if you think it's necessary. I don't care too much what information you keep or how you move it around, I just think that the formatting needs to change. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Split and repunctuated.
  • No worries, we should probably aim for mid-Atlantic neutrality where possible!

Mode of life

[edit]
  • The lines from "The tube feet typically have a tip...provides adhesion" feel like they are delivering information in a strange order. I would say "They use small suction pads at the tips of their tube feets as well as the secretion of mucus to adhere themselves to surfaces. Mover of molehills (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the suction pads merely adhered the animal would be stuck, wouldn't it... No, it's key that we talk about creating vacuum (reversibly), and the sticky secretion is definitely secondary to that. I'd say it wasn't badly expressed.
  • Okay, that's a good point. Do you think we could reduce the number of clauses in the second sentence by saying "This combines with some stickiness provided by the secretion of mucus to provide adhesion"? Mover of molehills (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded.
  • "Waves of tube feet contractions and relaxations move along" is confusing. I would say "The tube feet contract and relax in waves, causing the animal to move slowly along" instead. Mover of molehills (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, but that's not what it means, nor what it correctly says. There are waves of activity, the motions of one tube foot after another (think of the legs of a centipede), going faster than the animal as a whole.
  • Could we at least change "Waves of tube feet contractions and relaxations" to "The tube feet contract and relax in waves"? That seems to carry the same information, and moves it to active voice. Mover of molehills (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.
  • The phrase "and the animal moves in jerks" feel incongruous with the sentence it's in. I would recommend rephrasing this sentence as "They move by gripping the substrate with their two forward arms, "rowing" with their two side arms, and letting their hindermost arm trail behind." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, the locomotion of the animal as a whole is quite different from what the tube feet or indeed the arms are up to (there are 3 different levels of movement here). Locomotion is jerky, where the tube feet move in smooth little oscillations. (I suspect you might like the "evolution by jerks" vs "evolution by creeps" at Stephen Jay Gould#Punctuated equilibrium.)
  • It's redundant, but never mind!
  • The phrase "expand and contract their body or rhythmically flex it and "swim"" feels redundant. I would cut it to "rhythmically flex their body in order to "swim"". Mover of molehills (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded; once again, these two types of movement (peristalsis and flexing) are very different.
  • The line "These stems can bend and the arms can roll and unroll and that is about the limit of the sea lily's movement" is extremely poorly phrased. I would say "Sea lilies are able to bend their stalks and roll and unroll their arms, and a few species can crawl along the seabed, but other than that they have no capacity for movement." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded.
Feeding
[edit]
  • The modes of feeding vary greatly between the different echinoderm taxa" is kind of a passive way to phrase it. I would say "Different echinoderm taxa feed in very different ways." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, "mode of feeding" is a term of art in zoology.
  • The sentence "Crinoids are suspension feeders and spread their arms wide to catch particles floating past" seems entirely redundant with what you have just said. I would cut this sentence and make the next one "Crinoids catch food particles with the tube feet on their pinnules, move them into the ambulacral grooves, wrap them in mucus and then convey them to the mouth using the cilia on the grooves." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded.
  • Does it make sense to describe a dichotomy between basket stars and brittle stars? I thought that basket stars were a subtaxa of brittle stars. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are, but they have distinctive behaviours. Added 'other'.
  • The phrase "though usually one predominates" is unclear - which one? Or do you mean each species has its own preferred method (in which case you should clarify that)? Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed. It means the latter; it's actually explained in the rest of the paragraph.
  • "Others are scavengers and feeders on detritus" would sound better as "Others are scavengers which feed on detritus." "Feeder" isn't a word you hear very often. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, two different things. For the second one, we could say 'detritus feeder' or 'detritivore'.
  • Nitpick: "specialised mouthparts known as Aristotle's lantern" sounds strange because you're equating a singular with a plural. Would it be fair to say "specialized mouthpart"? Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, we can't do that; Aristotle's lantern has five jaws. Best as it is, I think.
  • I thought that the picture "File:Neothyonidium magnum (Burrowing sea cucumber).jpg" might be nice to add to this section - not just for the sake of decoration, but because it effectively illustrates what is going on. Sorry if this is the wrong section. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not, added.
  • You begin two paragraphs in a row with the redundant phrasing "Many sea urchins" and then "Many sea cucumbers". I would change the second one to "Sea cucumbers tend to." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded, but the "many" was not redundant (however repetitive), we need to say it's a lot of 'em.
Defense mechanisms
[edit]
  • "Another defensive strategy sometimes adopted by sea cucumbers is to rupture the body wall" could be condensed as "Sea cucumbers also occasionally defend themselves by rupturing their body wall" Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded. Note that "defensive strategy" is yet another term of art, but we can let this one go.
  • The connection of "It is not unusual to find starfish with arms of different sizes in various stages of regrowth" to this section is tenuous. I would recommend just deleting it, or perhaps moving it to the "regeneration" section. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, it's covered over there already.

Ecology

[edit]
  • Another nice image that could go with this section: "File:Blue Linckia Starfish.JPG". This one is a bit more optional, but I do think it provides an effective illustration of the symbiosis between starfish and coral reefs. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added.
  • The sentence "An example is the change...1983" feels like the wrong order of information delivery. I would say "In 1983, for example, the mass mortality of the tropical sea urchin Diadema antillarum caused a change from a coral-dominated reef system to an alga-dominated one in the Caribbean." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rearranged.
  • The sentence "Echinoderms form part of the diet...humans" feels redundant with some of the information in the section above, and also implies that the section above was missing quite a bit of information. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merged the predators lists.

Use by humans

[edit]
  • The sentence "The quality is assessed by the colour which can range from light yellow to bright orange", because it does not say which colors are better. I would restructure this as a sentence in the form of "Gonads of color X are generally considered of higher quality than gonads of color Y."
    • Reworded.
  • I don't understand what you mean by "drying for the arts and craft trade" - could you clarify that? Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • They stick on dried starfish to create artworks, rather as small schoolchildren glue pasta to things and paint it in jolly colours to create "things of beauty" for their parents' homes for the following 20 years or so... Reworded.

Verifiable

[edit]

@Chiswick Chap: The rest of the comments for the review will be in this section as I check through the citations. Hopefully, unless the article has substantial referencing issues, this should mean that the bulk of the work for you is over. Mover of molehills (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, let's hope so!
  • I feel a little bit uncomfortable with how you present the list "Two main subdivisons...paracrinoids" using the exact same format as the source. Is this standard in biology, or is there a way to rephrase it? Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There isn't a lot of scope for rewording, as you rightly indicate; the Wikipedia position is that lists can't be copyrighted as anyone is free to name the items there. The order was in fact already not identical, but I've varied the wording further for you.

Verifiable 2

[edit]
  • The phrase "Crinoids are passive suspension feeders" is directly taken from the source, and could use a rephrase. Mover of molehills (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm, "suspension feeder" is a term of art, and passivity is a key feature, as suspension feeding is generally active. Rejiggled the words, but this is both extremely minor (unnecessary, beyond GA criteria) and awkward to avoid.
  • I don't see evidence for the phrase "The water vascular system, haemal system and perihaemal system form the tubular coelomic system." Mover of molehills (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source states "General morphology": "The water vascular system is one of three parts of the tubular coelomic system. The other parts are the haemal system (hs) and the perihaemal system (phs), which usually surrounds the haemal system."

Verifiable 3

[edit]
  • The sentence "after 500 million years of larval evolution, about 68% of species whose development is known have a yolk-feeding larva" is much too close to the source. Try a better paraphrase. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded.
  • I feel like the phrase "0.1 gigatons of carbon" is misleading because this seems to be referring to elemental carbon and not CO2 (while I think most estimates of carbon sequestration are given in terms of CO2). I believe 0.1 Gt of C is equal to 0.37 Gt CO2. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.

The link in source 107 doesn't seem to be about echinoderms - another home page. I think you want this link: http://annex.exploratorium.edu/imaging_station/research/urchin/story_urchin1.php. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Updated URL, added archive.

Broad

[edit]
  • This article is overall very complete. The one thing it might be missing is a section on "Etymology," although I'm not sure if there's much interesting to say. If you don't want to add an etymology section, I would recommend removing the phrase "(/ɪˌkaɪnoʊˈdɜːrmətə/; from Ancient Greek ἐχῖνος (ekhînos) 'hedgehog', and δέρμα (dérma) 'skin')" because it really breaks up the lead sentence. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't see that removing the etymology altogether is an improvement! Moved it to taxonomy.
  • Great, this section is now a pass. Mover of molehills (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

[edit]

For a natural sciences article, this is an automatic pass. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stable

[edit]
I'd say it was marginal - three unconstructive editors since March, but feel free to do it if you think it'll help. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated

[edit]
  • I think the file "File:Water vascular system of a young starfish.jpg" might be a better bet than the one you currently have for the subsection on the vascular system. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting, but the current one shows the ampullae, and it also shows how everything is connected, which the other drawing is a bit vague about. I think we'd best stick with the one we've got for the moment. There may well be CC-by-SA drawings out there that are better but I've not seen them yet.
  • Fair enough.

Verdict

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Echinoderm/GA1&oldid=1144253990"