Talk:Mysida/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 12:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll review this before long, in the meantime, any of these images[1][2] useful? The article could benefit from some more images, added one... FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your suggestions a bit over specialised but I have added a couple more. There are not many on Commons. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lead doesn't appear to summarise the entire article, for example on description and "culture".

Expanded a bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"are often used as a diagnostic feature of the group." Context could clarify this for the average reader. Diagnosis for classification?

Changed wording. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff about distribution seems to fit better close to behaviour, the content overlaps. Now there's a weird gap between the two. FunkMonk (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the sections around a bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Mysids are good candidates for large-scale culture," which is what exactly? Aquarium? FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed wording. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"benthic and pelagic" Explain in parenthesis?

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are some other uncommon terms throughout that could benefit from this too, such as "ghonochoristic".

Removed that word and explained some others. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

with the adults preying on their young" Their own offspring?

I doubt they distinguish between their own offspring and that of others. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking on this review. I have hopefully dealt with the points you raise above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking pretty good. Any reason why the article is not located at the common name? Found a pretty good image[3] on Flickr, of any use? FunkMonk (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced one of the other images (which was of the same species) with that one. As for the name, we have Isopoda but Copepod and I am not bothered much either way and usually accept what I find. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll pass! FunkMonk (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]