Talk:Urceolus/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Snoteleks (talk · contribs) 16:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 17:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Snoteleks, I'll take a look at this but after watching the expansions you've done I don't foresee any major issues arising. Fritzmann (message me) 17:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a citation for the Latin translation of urceolus?

Is the Merriam-Webster dictionary citation I just added good enough?

"The Euglenozoa" or just "Euglenozoa"?

As far as I know it can go both ways.

Any simpler way to say "molecular phylogenies" in the lead? Can still link to molecular phylogenetics

I wrote 'evolutionary studies' instead.

"They exhibit squirming movements" does this refer to the flagellum or the whole organism?

The whole cells exhibit squirming movements. I modified the sentence.

"They present an organelle for ingestion, very small in some species" is this the same as the feeding apparatus mentioned in the lede and a sentence earlier? Can you elaborate on this organelle at all?

I actually noticed this on my own, and rearranged the sentence before you updated the review. Yes they are the same. I also added a bit more elaboration just now.

"only occasionally find their way into the plankton" can you clarify this? Does this refer to the location where the plankton are within the body of water, or actually inside of plankton?

It does refer to the location, but technically by moving into the location of the plankton (i.e. the water column) they become plankton themselves. Regardless, I modified the sentence, let me know if it's not clear enough.

Don't think you need to mention they are heterotrophic flagellates again in the evolution section

I hear you, but I also think it's a nice touch since I relate them evolutionarily to their non-heterotrophic euglenophyte cousins.

Perhaps split the sentence that begins "In Urceolus cyclostomus..." in two

Split made.

Can you rephrase or define "paraflagellar"?

Rephrased.

Maybe mention when the cladogram was published

Mentioned.

There's a bit of funky phrasing going on in the sentence starting "He distinguished this new genus..."

I modified the sentence. Let me know if it needs further change.

At the end of the paragraph about Urceolopsis, perhaps "It was later synonimised to Urceolus [for that reason]"

Done.

Checked references for the note, and I think that is a very elegant way to handle the complex and contradictory information. I don't think this veers into OR, as it just presents the contradiction in a straightforward way.

Excellent.

Checks of references 11, 2, and 17/20 yield no issues. Taking the non-English and non-online references on good faith.

Thank you. But, for full disclosure, the non-online reference (Mereschkowsky, 1877) is out of reach even for me, so I added it assuming good faith on Mereshkowsky's part. Also, I used Google translate to read the non-English references. I hope that's okay?

I think that's fine, since you aren't actually drawing any information from it and are just giving the reader the original location of the description. As for Google Translate, I do the same thing, and I trust you used discretion and omitted anything that might have lost context or meaning through machine translation.

Both images are in the public domain and are on Commons as such

Excellent. I added them myself, too!

Overall, a very clean and clear article. Once those few things are taken care of I see no reasons not to promote! Fritzmann (message me) 11:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritzmann2002, thank you for reviewing. I addressed all of your points. Let me know if you need any further changes or additions. — Snoteleks (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snoteleks, the changes look good to me. Thanks for being incredibly punctual and making this a straightforward review! Passing now, congrats, Fritzmann (message me) 14:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]