Talk:Phoronid/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 16:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• "In some habitats populations of phoronids reach tens of thousand of individuals per 1 square metre (11 sq ft)". Should obviously be "per square metre (11 sq ft)".
  • That's needed by {{convert}}. I can take out the imperials if you like. --Philcha (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't think that {{convert}} works in situations like this. Why not just spell it out? Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Removed all imperials - see this diff. --Philcha (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• "... the larval tentacles are replaced by the adult lophophore; the anus moves from the bottom to just outside the lophophore; and this changes the gut from upright to a U-bend ...". What is the "this" referring to? Replacement of the tentacles, movement of the anus, or both? "This" is almost always ambiguous when used in this way.
  • Now "the move of the anus changes ...". --Philcha (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• "The blood of Phoronis architecta carries twice as much oxygen as a human of the same weight." I know what you mean, but obviously there are no humans of the same weight.
  • "... in cm3 per gm of body weight" is the subject of the clause, like "... pound for pound the greatest puncher" in boxing. I don't want a clumsy, verbose explanation. What would you suggest? --Philcha (talk)

Body structure

• "Most adult phoronids are 2 to 20 centimetres (0.79 to 7.9 in) long ...". The conversions seem a little overly precise, i.e., (0.8 to 8.0 in) would be better.
  • That's {{convert}}. I can take out the imperials if you like. --Philcha (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• "The cavity in the epistome is sometimes called the protocoelom, although other authors disagree that it is a coelom". Oher authors from whom? We haven't mentioned any authors yet.
  • There's a debate, and the authors are in the first source cited here. I'm averse to strings of names that mean nothing to general readers, and more expert readers can get the participants with 2 clicks from the article, which is easier than most journals make it. --Philcha (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Family tree

• "While analyses by molecular phylogeny are confident that members of Lophotrochozoa are more closely related to each other than of non-members ...". Analyses can't be confident about anything, not being people and all.
  • Now "While analysts using molecular phylogeny ..." --Philcha (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• "... several authors' embryological and morphological analyses which doubt or disagree that phoronids and brachiopods are deuterostomes". Similar to above point about the ability of analyses to doubt or disagree about anything.
  • Now "... which express doubt or disagreement ... --Philcha (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Bryozoa (Ectoprocta) are not closely related to this group, despite use a similar lophophore for feeding and respiration." Something missing there.
  • What do you think is missing? It makes perfect sense to me, although I may be too close to the subject area, having already taken Bryozoa and Brachiopod to GA. And the current article IMO explains the form and functions of a lophophore. --Philcha (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    • It's the "despite use a", which is ungrammatical; "despite the use of a", or "despite their shared use of a"? Malleus Fatuorum 21:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I saw only what I expected. Now "despite using a similar lophophore" --Philcha (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
        • We all have that problem Philcha; we see what we think we wrote, not what what we actually did write. Let me know on my talk page when you think you're done and I'll look again. Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Some analyses regard Phoronida and Brachiopoda as sister-groups ...". There's those omniscient analyses again.
  • Now "... analysts ...". --Philcha (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• "... those in which the hinge between the two valves have no teeth and sockets".
  • Now "... has ..." --Philcha (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Nervous system and movement

• "There is a nervous center is between the mouth and anus ...". --Philcha (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Reproduction and lifecycle

• "Some of these species are hermaphroditic ...". Some of what species?
  • "All phoronids breed sexually from spring to autumn. Some of these species ..." looks clear to me. --Philcha (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• "The gametes swim through the metacoelom to the metanephridia ...". Shouldn't that be metacoelom?
  • Synonym, see Goole. --Philcha (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Would the non-expert reader recognise that as a synonym? Is there any compelling reason not to be consistent in the use of terminology? Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. --Philcha (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Sperm exit by the nephridiopores and some are captured by the lophophores of individuals of the same species. Species that lay small fertilized eggs release them into the water as plankton, while species with larger eggs brood them either in the body's tube or stuck in the center of the lophophore by adhesive, and then larger eggs are released to feed on plankton when they develop into larvae." Trying to cram too much in here I think: "species with larger eggs ... and then larger eggs". Larger eggs than what? Larger than the larger eggs?
  • "Brooded eggs ..."? Or even "... and then the larger eggs are released ..."?--Philcha (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• "Development of the eggs is a mixture of deuterostome and protostome of characteristics". Of characteristics?
  • Now "... mixture of deuterostome and protostome of characteristics. --Philcha (talk) 07:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Nothing is known about three species". That can't be right, we presumably know that they exist. Are we saying that we don't know anything about the reproductive lifecycle of three species?
  • Now "Nothing is known about the lifecycles of three species". --Philcha (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• "the hood and larval tentacles are absorbed and the adult lophophore is created round the mouth, and both now points upward".
• Now "... point ..."

Ecology

• "Although predators of phoronids are not well known, they include fish, gastropods (snails), and nematodes (tiny roundworms)." That's not quite right; fish, snails and so on are very well-known.
  • Per the source, Emig (2003). --Philcha (talk) 07:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• ... populations of phoronids reach tens of thousand of individuals per 1 square metre (11 sq ft)". As above.
  • OK if I remove the imperial? --Philcha (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer if it was just written as "per square metre (11 sq ft)". There's no reason to use the {{convert}} template, when it produces unidiomatic results like that. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Phoronids live in all the oceans and seas including the Arctic and excepting the Antarctic Ocean". "All the oceans and seas" obviously includes the Arctic.
  • The point is: most books, including my very good one (2004), and most web pages don't mention Arctic Phoronids; the Arctic Phoronids were found by Russians; the authority cited here, Temereva, only started writing in English after the mid-2000s. Emig (2003) also mentions Arctic Phoronids. --Philcha (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• "In 2000 Temereva described a new species, Phoronopsis malakhovi, while Emig regards it as a synonym for Phoronopsis harmeri." That "while" just doesn't work there.
  • I dislike the obvious alternative, "... which Emig regards as a ...", as that would look as if Emig is the supreme authority - Emig was it for decades, but Temereva is now on a par. --Philcha (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Images

• The licensing for File:Nur03506.jpg claims that it's in the public domain because it was published before 1923, but as the first colour underwater photograph was taken in 1923 that seems unlikely.
  • You read the wrong part of the File page. The URL is from National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a US govt agency. The nuisances have re-organised the site w/o giving the new link (double nuisances). Internet Archive [http://classic-web.archive.org/web/20021226162522/http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/nurp/nur03506.htm found as of Dec 26, 2002, so I've updated the File at stinky Commmons. Licence {{PD-US}} And when I wanted to save, WP demanded that I log in! --Philcha (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (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.