Talk:Bathyphysa conifera/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 11:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments

This is obviously both a species article and a piece of entertainment, but we must take care to be neutral and serious in tone. It's on the whole well cited.

Thank you, but what do you mean by "piece of entertainment"? --awkwafaba (📥) 22:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• The article is heavy on parentheses. I suggest we remove most or all of these, using punctuation and connectives instead. For example

(magatamanira)(literally 'jewel leek')

can be written

magatamanira, "jewel leek".

 Done, but looks odd to me. What do you think? --awkwafaba (📥) 22:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

As another example, "gastrozooids (feeding polyps)" can be written "gastrozooids, feeding polyps".

 Done --awkwafaba (📥) 22:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Please do similarly for the other examples.

 Done --awkwafaba (📥) 22:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• The "It has been found" paragraph should be a section headed "Distribution".

 Done --awkwafaba (📥) 22:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• "unusual shape": unusual for what? Best drop the adjective: "due to the shape..." is sufficient.

 Done --awkwafaba (📥) 22:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Please explain what a gonophore is.

 Done --awkwafaba (📥) 22:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• The sentence about "carnivorous" should be a separate section on "Feeding". What does it actually eat? Citation needed. How does it catch its food? Citation needed.

 Not done I had no sources found on exactly what this species eats. I will do another search of the literature, and for now have copied information from the siphonophorae article. However, as B. conifera lacks tentillae I could not apply the other information there. --awkwafaba (📥) 22:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• The paragraph on body plan should be a section headed "Description" or something of that sort. The material on how it differs from other genera could be a separate section on "Recognition".

Those would be rather small sections, and i think it would confure readers. Are there other taxonomic articles that have those two sections that I can look at? --awkwafaba (📥) 22:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

There isn't (and can't be) a single rigid pattern but if you look on the GA page under 'Animals' you'll see plenty of examples of things that work.

• We need some account of the fact that it is a colonial species, as each polyp is an individual; that can go in Description and needs to be cited.

 Done cribbed from the siphonophorae article again. --awkwafaba (📥) 22:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

If you copy from another article you must say so in an edit comment (even after the event), naming (and preferably linking) the article and saying "see there for attribution". Otherwise it's actually a copyright violation and we wouldn't want that now.

• I suggest that the Japanese and Chinese sentences go into the "Name" section.

 Done --awkwafaba (📥) 22:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• The Caristius paragraph should be a section headed "Ecology".

 Done --awkwafaba (📥) 22:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Caristius is a manefish, please say this.

 Done --awkwafaba (📥) 22:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• The relationship as described is a kind of symbiosis, apparently a mutualism: this needs to be mentioned and cited.

 Done --awkwafaba (📥) 22:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Is that covered by the existing citation? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• What is a "viral sighting"? Not sure we need to mention that or the date or Angola at all really, it's trivia. Better without.

 Done --awkwafaba (📥) 22:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I still need to go through the sources I grabbed from the siphonophorae article, as well as a few new articles I found searching for diet.

Thanks, that will be useful. The article is already a lot clearer but food and feeding definitely need more detail. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• We also need something on reproduction, really.
  •  DoneApparently science would agree. I added what could be inferred phylogenetically. --awkwafaba (📥) 01:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• "main deity of Pastafarianism" is presented as if it were really a god. I think this needs rewording to provide clarity, and a serious encyclopedic tone.
  • I'm not sure what you mean. Is this article really the place to discuss religion? Apparently they say it is a deity, and others do not. What word would you use to describe it? --awkwafaba (📥) 01:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not the god of any real religion. It's also supported by 4 sources, one in Chinese and the other 3 not even supporting the claim, as far as I can tell. I've used the Washington Post, a source which actually supports it.

Sorry this had taken a while. Lot of stuff going on, above and beyond even the craziness in the world. --awkwafaba (📥) 01:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, that seems to be everything. Good work. I hope you're pleased with the result and will take the time to pick an article to review from the GAN list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)