Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millipede/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2016 [1].

Millipede

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an important invertebrate group. Much of the article was expanded over the years to a high standard by Animalparty with whom I have been in contact before nominating it. I think the article is clear and well written and have been polishing it up. I look forward to your comments for further improvement. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This is an impressive article, but before adding my support I think the text needs to be put into consistently British or American English; at present it is a mixture of the two. I think there is more BrE – I spotted "armoured"; "behaviour"; "characterised"; "colonised"; "coloured"; "defence"; "faeces"; "metre" and "moult" – but there is a modest sprinkling of AmE too: "defense"; "discoloration"; "favored"; "hemorrhoids" and "specialized behaviors". In theory, following WP:ENGVAR, the article should stick to the variety of English used in the first version in which such a variety can be identified after due research in old revisions, unless there is a consensus to the contrary, but I very much doubt that anyone will object if the nominator simply decides whether it's to be in BrE or AmE and amends accordingly. But it really must be one or the other and not a mishmash of both. Otherwise I have nothing but praise, and look forward to supporting. – Tim riley talk 09:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The article seemed to be predominantly in British English so that is what I have adopted, made easier by the fact that my spellchecker is in British English. I have dealt with the words you mentioned but there may be others I have missed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I know little about the subject (though I know a lot more now than I did before reading this article) and I defer to any experts, but this seems to me a comprehensive and authoritative treatment of the topic. It is highly readable – quite an achievement in such a technical subject, I'd say – and widely referenced, well illustrated and judiciously proportioned. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Very happy to support. Tim riley talk 16:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tim. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Agreed that this was quite readable. - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits look fine. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: An impressive aritcle of readable scholarship. I have a number of minor prose quibbles (you don't have to accept them all):

Lead
  • "fused together as one" – last two words redundant
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "defend themselves with a variety of defensive chemicals..." – no need for the repetitious adjective
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Among myriapods, millipedes have traditionally been considered most closely related to the tiny pauropods..." – I'm not knowledgeable in this field, but instinct suggests that a "the" should be inserted before "most"; am I right?
I don't think so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Evolution
  • "entirely" extinct? Wouldn't just "extinct" do?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Characteristics
  • "eleven to over one hundred segments"; any reason not to use numerics, as earlier in the sentence?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Head
  • "Their true function..." – why not just "Their function..."?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "secondarily lost their eyes": could this be clarified for the general reader?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Predators and parasites
  • I'm wondering if "are believed to" could be rendered a bit more authoritatively – as worded, this seems rather vague.
The source says "... a likely dietary source of such alkaloids" so I had better not be any more definite. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Other inter-species interactions
  • I notice you use the word "simply" in this section – about the fourth use within the text. In most of these cases the word adds little, and you might consider dropping it.
Removed three uses. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interactions with people
  • "have even been reported" → "have been reported". As with "are believed to", above, there is imprecision here as to who reported this.
Removed both. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In popular music (including names of albums, songs, and artists) millipedes are poorly represented compared to other arthropods." This bit of trivia sits uneasily within the article; is it really worth keeping?
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Living groups
  • There needs to be consistency in how you introduce people. Here, you use both the accepted BritEng form ("the French zoologist Pierre André Latreille" and "the German naturalist Johann Friedrich von Brandt"), and the AmEng form ("Dutch biologist C. A. W. Jeekel" and "American biologist Richard L. Hoffman"). As the article appears to be written in British English, you should standardise to the Brit form.
Done. Thank you for your comments. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to supporting (feel free to ping if I don't return soon). Brianboulton (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm very happy with your responses. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
's was a question about reviewing the files used in this article. I don't see much wrong with the location of the files bar the recommendation to use WP:ALTTEXT. I see some collage images which cite the copyright license of the collage as the license of the file with the highest-number CC-BY or CC-BY-SA version, which seems to be correct under commons:COM:Collages. I shall look at the copyright status and use of the other files tomorrow.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Make that another tomorrow - too late today.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - taking a look now, notes below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Millipedes are arthropods forming the class Diplopoda, which is characterised by having two pairs of jointed legs on most body segments. - GIven the class name is not well-known, the first clause doesn't really say anything to familiarise the reader with the subject. How about, "Millipedes are a group of arthropods that are characterised by having two pairs of jointed legs on most body segments." - then add somewhere, "they are known scientifically as the class Diplopoda, the name derived from this feature." or something similar. Anyway, maybe not exactly this but something like it.
An excellent idea! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
molecular studies - needs a link
Silurian geologic period - I'd not use the adjective "geologic" here
Millipedes also include the earliest evidence of chemical defence - "Millipedes also bear/possess/have/exhibit the earliest evidence of chemical defence" (i.e. choose a verb here, or another)
link cyanide.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As classification and evolution are intertwined, it makes no sense to me to have the former stuck right at the bottom. I'd take the first sentence of the classification section and place in etymology. The classification section I'd move up and combine with evolution (placing it above evolution and making evolution a level 3 header within classification. The last two sentence of evolution are more about diversity and would go well combined with material on total number of species.
I have made the changes you suggest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, reads well. I need to think if anything is left out but impresses as comprehensive on first two reads.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. 'support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • The individual photos are fine, mainly from Flickr, Commons users, or CC licences journal articles. But there are problems with most of the images that have been modified, as explained below. FunkMonk (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the journal illustrations modified by Animalparty need tweaks in their info templates. This one[2] should have the original info under source and author, since it is only modified by the uploader, not created from scratch.
@FunkMonk: Before I move on to the others, have I done this one correctly? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think Animalparty could still have a "modified by" credit under author, though... FunkMonk (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise with this image[3], the original journal source needs to be linked, and the license changed, as a compilation is not "selfmade", but simply a modification of images.
I am clueless about this. One part of the compilation is in the public domain while the other part has an "Attribution 2.5 Generic" license, so I have used the latter for the compilation, is that right? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline linked below has a similar example, see this file:[4] Seems to me you did it right... FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise with this photo compilation:[5]
Done this one? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say so! FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with this compilation[6], and I can even see some of the original images have different licenses than the one listed on the compilation, so as mentioned above, read this guideline on compilation licences and tweak accordingly on all compilations: commons:COM:Collages
Done? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does the image under "Interactions with people" have to do with that subject? Also, the species is not identified, so its value here is limited. Perhaps a more relevant image can be found?
Thank you. I have changed the image mentioned in your final point, and will see what I can do about the other points tomorrow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All the changes look good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have read this article multiple times even before it was nominated for FA and wondered why it wasn't at that state. Excellent writing, comprehensive and interesting, will definitely make a great addition to the FA list. Hopefully its meaner cousin reaches this stage someday too! Burklemore1 (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Burklemore1. I'll think about the meaner cousin! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - all OK

[edit]
  • Consistent formatting and sufficient details - OK.
  • Reliable sources (books, academic journals, expert websites) - OK (1 question below).
  • Thorough referencing - OK (1 question below).
  • As a layman I can't fully judge factual accuracy. But spotchecking a few bits of information showed no signs of problems - OK.
  • Ref #2 - diplopoda.org. Could you clarify the site's background and expertise? It looks like an expert site, but unfortunately I can't access all pages at the moment (have added an archive just to be safe). Related to that question: the entire section "Burrowing" is referenced by this source. For an acknowledged expert site that's no problem. Otherwise it would be better to add more diverse sourcing for this section. GermanJoe (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwmhiraeth: Making sure you saw this. --Laser brain (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed your source review, GermanJoe. Thank you for pinging me, Laser brain. I don't know who is behind the Diplopoda.org site so I have removed it and replaced it with my Invertebrate Zoology text book which covers all the material, as far as I can see. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick fix, a text book is probably the most straightforward solution. All OK then. GermanJoe (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Millipede/archive1&oldid=1138467042"