Talk:Entoprocta/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments to follow soon Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• "crown" (several) is a metaphor, doesn't need quotes, also inconsistently used without quotes elsewhere

  circlet is the type I have in mind, but do you think that's well-known enough to non-specialist readers (of entoprocts or crowns or both)?

  I prefer the quotes, to remind readers that "crown / circlet" is a metaphor and not exact. --Philcha (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  Well, first seven occurrences are in quotes, next nine are not?? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  I might well as being consistently eccentric :-) --Philcha (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• all but 2 of the 150 species are marine. spell out "two"

  WP:MOSNUM is not part of WP:WIAGA, and my interpretation of "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures" at Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Numbers_as_figures_or_words is that both should be figures here. --Philcha (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• A few solitary species can move slowly. is there a connection between solitariness and motion?

  The few (slow-)moving entoprocts are also solitary - unlike Bryozoa, where some colonial species move, by using special zooids. --Philcha (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Names

• query linking "anus" again, esp as it's not an obscure word

  Hmmm. Most readers who understand the word will assume human anus - as WP did until a buddy and I moved the former Anus to Human anus and replaced Anus with content that applied to all the zoology (and a bit of paleontology) we could think of at the time. The previous content made innocent invertebrates blush! --Philcha (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• query position of quotes in "bent" or "curved" animals - shouldn't animals be in the quotes too, from the zoa bit?

  Logically right, but would have to repeat "animals" - "bent animals" or "curved animals". --Philcha (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  Fair enough Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Description

• "zooids" - do you need quotes?

  In this case I think it's about the term rather than the critters. Elsewhere in this its the critters, w/o/ quotes. --Philcha (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• personally I'd prefer the table centred, but your call. Anus linked again

  centred.

  unlinked anus here as it's linked a few lines above :-) --Philcha (talk)

• ...zooid consists of a calyx ("goblet") mounted on a relatively long stalk that attaches to a surface. calyx is a cup not a goblet, better perhaps as zooid has a goblet-like structure with a calyx mounted on a relatively long stalk that attaches to a surface.

  I've only looked at stalked ones, but you're right. And I like your phrasing - thanks, done. --Philcha (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Feeding etc

• in first line, perhaps comma + although instead of semicolon + except?

  Went for ", except ..." --Philcha (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Reproduction

• ''4d mesoblast cell. an apparently meaningless 4d and a redlink - needs a bit of a gloss or explanation

  "develops from a specific cell labelled "4d" in the early embryo". That's the limit of my embryology, and anyway a pic beats 1M words here - especially fig 1. and legend at Lambert, J.D. (2008). "Mesoderm in spiralians: the organizer and the 4d cell". Journal of Experimental Zoology. 310B. Wiley InterScience: 15–23. doi:10.1002/jez.b. --Philcha (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Classification

• I fixed the family link

  Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ecology

• Two species live in freshwater is it worth naming the two species? Can this be more specific, is it all freshwater?

  Named the freshwater spp. --Philcha (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  "Can this be more specific, is it all freshwater?" - heh? --Philcha (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  I just meant do they occur in all rivers and lakes, or are they geographically restricted at all - not a big deal, just curious Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  Made distribution more informative in general (IMO). --Philcha (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• White Sea why italics?

  Stupidity (mine). Remedied (italics, not stupidity). --Philcha (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionary history

• no comments

Images

• File:Trochophore larva 01.png can the description page be cleaned up a bit? I think the fair use rationale is OK for the last image, and the lead image is fine too

  File:Trochophore larva 01.png description page cleaned up a bit (bah, as bad as tax returns) --Philcha (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Refs

• I'd be inclined to rehead section as Notes, put Ruppert, Fox and Barnes in a new References section, and just refer to the relevant pages in Notes eg Rupert et al (2004) pp. 290-291 - tidier than repeating the whole ref for each page group

  I usually include the chapter title, in case a reader gets a different edition or translation, with different pagination. I see I missed a couple of chapter titles and have fixed these.

  With chapter title, I think the current approach is more compact. The alternative is:

  • A bibliography section with date, ISBN, etc.
  • Inline cites that provide authors (3!), date, chapter, pp. - e.g. "Ruppert, Fox and Barnes (2004), "Kamptozoa and Cycliophora", pp. 808-812 - and that's for 1 incline cite!

  In any case the whole section in the book is 5 pp, smaller than most journal articles. I see no need to add specific page numbers here, especially some will overlap 2 pages, covering 2 of the 5 pages :-) --Philcha (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Further reading - the book is incorrectly formatted

  And misspelt. Done - had to get the biblio details from a Dutch source! --Philcha (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Over to you! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I understand the point you were making with crown, it seems odd to have half the article with quotes and half without, suggesting that the latter ones are real crowns? The only other unstruck is just a request for more info if it's readily available, no big deal if not. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: