Talk:Brachiopod/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   This has its own cilia, which wash the lumps out through the gape between the valves. Did you mean "gape" or "gap"?  Done OK, just checking. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

   'Circulation and respiration Two instances of "seems to be" here which introduce a note of uncertainty. Is the opinion of biologists. Perhaps it should be more directly attributed?

   ''The smallest living brachiopod, Gwynia, is only about 1 millimetre (0.039 in) long, and lives between in gravel. "lives between in gravel"??  Done

   I don't think that the main division between articulata and inarticulata is introduced early enough. There is mention of the two branches in the Description' section, but I think it might be better to introduce the three classification concepts quite early on.

   The Lead is rather long, should be a maximum of four paragraphs, and should be a succinct summary of the article.

   I made a few minor copy-edits. Please check.[1]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   This is very well referenced and all sources appear WP:RS

   We do need page numbers for the books and journals however.

   I assume good faith for the sources which I cannot access.

   All accessible (to me) online sources check out fine and support the cited statements.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is thorough and focussed on the subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, some queries about some of the prose and most importantly the lead. On hold for seven days. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

   OK, this is a very interesting article. AS you have mentioned below further informatioin will come to light as studies progress. I was a bit confused by the [[tl|sfn}} template usage, with which I am not overfamiliar. I couldn't see why the page numbers were not appearing, but reading the documentation it seems that one can use either location (loc) or page ( or pp). As loc is used the page numbers do not appear as well. So this is fine, the correct section of the book is shown which is enough for someone to check it out. I am happy to list this a as a good article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! By the way, I'd been think about section number or whatever as an alternative to page number, and Dragon's Egg with its N languages pushed me. --Philcha (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"This has its own cilia, which wash the lumps out through the gape between the valves" - "gape" is OK. --Philcha (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Section "Circulation and respiration" correctly say "seems to be" 2 times - 1 for Ruppert & co, 1 by Doherty in Anderson, the 2 books I use for standard textbooks. You might have a laugh at Bryozoa#Evolutionary_family_tree, where an specialist complainted that "minor phyla" "received little scientific study because they are generally tiny, have relatively simple body plans, and have little impact on human economies" - and brachiopods may be more "minor" in our time, although they were important in the Paleozoic Era. There even are gaps in knowing about annelids. Most zoologists study vertebrates, and these are 2 level below the phylum chordates. --Philcha (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"and lives between in gravel" was stuck - I chose "in". --Philcha (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised by your "think it might be better to introduce the three classification concepts quite early on", as "Taxonomy" is the next section after "Description". I don't think all of "Taxonomy" can be first, as it needs the part in "Description" to explain it. And divided either "Taxonomy" or "Description" into 2 parts IMO would be as bad. Perhaps the problem is "The major classification of brachiopods is determined by the form of the hinges" in section "Shells and their mechanisms" - if "The major classification of brachiopods is determined by the form of the hinges" is removed, then all 3 classications are first description in "Taxonomy". What do you think? --Philcha (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, looking at it again, I take your point. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Edited, thanks! --Philcha (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy-edits. Can you please me why you removed the 2 / 3 stock from "Notes". I thought it would easier to read, like "References" - but you were right about your other edits ... --Philcha (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have accidentally removed that, reinstated. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Philcha (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You know the lead of Dragon's Egg has only 2 paras, and my other GAs that are not about zoology or paleontology have 3 to 4 paras. The ones more than 4 paras are Evolutionary history of life, Spider, Chelicerata and all phylum except Entoprocta, (the last is a "minor phyla").

Most readers will be more familiar with vertebrates, and may see the similiary with craniates and cephalochordates; few will see urochordates, hemichordates or echinoderms as close relatives. Readers will see protosomes as very different from us and from their protosomes. I think readers will not have the advantage they have with vertebrates, and will want all we can give. That's while "Description" is detailed. I think "Taxonomy" and "Evolutionary history" of brachiopods is still controversial, although in 10 years perhaps it won't be. My own feeling is that this article is own of the most difficulty. I think the lead must tell the reader that this is coming.

I've edited the para about "The lineages that have both fossil and extant members appeared ... bearing two symmetrical plates that might be an early form of brachiopod valves." --Philcha (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understand your point and see that there is anything really to be trimmed. the guidelines are there for guidance and should not be mindlessly applied. The lead is fine. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't think the MOS people worked on higher taxa :-) --Philcha (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)