Talk:Skeleton panda sea squirt/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vortex3427 (talk · contribs) 14:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weird name. Weirder appearance. Initial comments (will take a closer look tomorrow):

Article is in good shape.
For referencing scientific details, I'd prefer if those news sites are mostly exorcised.
I wonder if there is precedent on recently described species becoming GAs, besides your (ahem) hotly contested last effort.

The news sites mostly mirror the scientific papers so it shouldn't be too hard to reference them to the sources directly (with the exception of FNN who directly interviewed the lead researcher on their own). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. They only need to replace the scientific details. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 14:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it, the scientific details are only sourced from the original paper, the press release and (in only one case) the researcher's interview now. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

To be consistent with other sea squirt articles, the lede should be ascidian (sea squirt) instead. Also, should the alternative name skeleton panda ascidian (Hasegawa & Kajihawa 2024, p. 53) be mentioned, either in the lede or Etymology?
anchored to the substrate Just say surface
You could split into two sentences at currents, in colonies "currents. It lives in colonies". Also with the last sentence: "The researches formally described it three years later."

History

formally undescribed replace "not formally described"? I can't put my finger on why I find this weird. Also, link to undescribed taxon.
Thanks to crowdfunding efforts is colloquial. Maybe "Supported through crowdfunding" instead?
the tunicate Replace with a simple pronoun, as most readers don't know what a tunicate is.
Add "which is" before only accessible
Four specimens were collected ~~the holotype and three paratypes,~~ in colonies ranging from one to four individuals. You don't have to specify this, because there is always only one holotype (link holotype and paratype in the next mention). Also, does one colony count as one specimen?
Add a sentence in Etymology about the origins and meaning of the colloquial name "gaikotsu-panda-hoya" from Japanese netizens (The News 2024, Hasegawa & Kajihawa 2024, p. 53). The two sentences in Etymology don't have to be separate paragraphs

Description

I'm gonna need a bit more time with this section.

Taxonomy

Link morphological and spiracles.
Clavelina ossipandae was ~~more precisely recovered~~ identified as the sister species of C. australis ~~inside the genus Clavelina (found by the authors to be paraphyletic to Nephtheis)~~ The first can just be replaced with identified, sister species can be linked, and doesn't the last bit belong in the article for the genus instead of this one?

Distribution and ecology

known from Kume Island By "known from", do you mean "discovered in" or "living in"?
Link phytoplankton.

General

You should keep the names you're using consistent. Are you using Clavelina ossipandae, C. ossipandae, or Skeleton panda sea squirt?
There are still also citations not to the peer-reviewed paper for scientific details e.g. FFN, press release. Even if they're interviews of the author, what makes the paper reliable is that it was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

[— VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 08:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Done. I linked it as ascidian (sea squirt) to avoid MOS:SOB. Alternative name is mentioned in the lede, I'll add a sentence in the Etymology section
Done, although might "surface" be confused with the sea surface?
Done.

History

Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done, and yes, each specimen sampled was a colony.
Pending. Going to do it.

Taxonomy

Partly done, morphological traits was linked to morphology (biology), but there is no article for spiracles in tunicates (spiracle is a disambiguation leading to spiracle (vertebrates) and spiracle (arthropods)). Should I link to the tunicate morphology section?
Done. Guess I'll have to update the genus article!

Distribution and ecology

Done, it's indeed "living in" as all specimens have been reported there. I don't think we can be 100% sure that there are none in nearby islands, but that's the extent of our knowledge.
Done.

General

Pending. I've been trying to vary the names to avoid repeating, is it recommended to stay consistent on this point? In this case, I'll probably use Clavelina ossipandae throughout.
Pending. Sadly, a few of the details are not in the paper itself. Should I omit them entirely?

Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 10:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby and Vortex3427: is there any further action on this GAN? It seems like it may have fallen through the cracks over the past few weeks. Best regards, Fritzmann (message me) 23:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm still here, I was waiting for a reply from Vortex to my questions above to make the changes. Just realized that I forgot about the one in the "Etymology" section, I can do this one without doing for a reply. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 00:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to this today — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 03:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby: To the ones still pending.

Yes, please link to that section.
Yes.
Yes.

@Fritzmann2002: I won't be able to be at my keyboard for the next five days. Once this is completed, is someone else allowed to pass the nomination? — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 12:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex3427, it still also needs a source check, which I'd be happy to do and finish up the nomination if you're away for a few days. Fritzmann (message me) 13:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vortex3427 @Fritzmann2002 Everything mentioned has bee done! Small detail, I realized I mixed up spiracles and stigmata (another name for a tunicate's individual pharyngeal slits) in the Taxonomy section, so the name of the feature could correctly be linked to Pharyngeal slit. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 01:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

1a checks out
5a checks out on the etymology
13 verifies the Clavena species' count
Assuming good faith on the two Japanese references, but the FNN source should have a translated title if the other one does

Other notes

Does "etymology" belong under the History section?
"tunicate" should be linked at its first mention in the article, rather than later in the description section
I'd swap the second and third paragraphs of the lead, since the first ends with a mention of their morphology
The sentence beginning "Four specimens..." is passive and a bit awkward in its construction
What does it mean that a zooid is "free"?
The link on "oral and atrial siphons" doesn't seem particularly useful; is there a glossary of anatomical terms it could link to instead?
The sentence starting "The back side of the pharynx..." should probably be split in two, it is a bit of a run-on at the moment
Is there an appropriate link for "ovaries" or "testicular follicles" or "brood pouch" by any chance?
Definitely link "budding"
Not required for GA, but turning the cladogram image into a cladogram template with wikilinks would make it easier to read and navigate

That's all I've got, once those few nitpicky notes are knocked out I'll give the article a pass! Fritzmann (message me) 23:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting a bit late today but I'll check out all of this tomorrow! Thanks a lot! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 00:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritzmann2002 Just did everything except for the cladogram and the links to "oral and atrial siphon" (we don't have a glossary of tunicate anatomy yet, although I hope to create one in the future), "ovaries" (as the article is basically human-centric and doesn't mention tunicates at all) and "testicular follicles" (no article, and testicle doesn't mention anything about tunicates either). Regarding the Japanese references, I removed the remaining translated title as I just wasn't sure if the translation was correct and didn't want to mislead. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 02:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Just passed, thanks for bearing with me. Would love to review more of your stuff in the future so drop me a ping if you GAN anything else! Fritzmann (message me) 15:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I have other articles I plan on bringing to GA, hopefully one day! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]