Talk:Hyalospheniidae

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hyalospheniidae/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 17:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It's been a long time, but I think I'm willing to take a stab at reviewing this. An anonymous username, not my real name 17:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It looks great overall; well-written, good coverage, good images, neutral, stable, etc. I did a few spot-checks and it passed all of them. There are a few things that I would recommend taking a look at, but they are rather minor:

• Quite a bit of MOS:JARGON overall, but I'm willing to let this go given that this article probably falls under the "intrinsically technical" umbrella and that most readers will likely have some familiarity with the language used.
• The very first few words of the article describe this clade as a "group" before correctly calling it a family. Perhaps reword to: "Hyalospheniidae is a family of arcellinid testate amoebae and the sole member of the infraorder Hyalospheniformes."
• Further along in the lead is the sentence "Their fossils are studied to investigate the paleoecology." This feels like something of a sentence fragment; paleoecology of what?
• "This family includes several of the most common, well-studied lobose testate amoebae (as opposed to filose testate amoebae, which belong to Cercozoa)." — This seems like a rather convoluted way of explaining the phylogeny. Entirely removing the content in parentheses probably wouldn't hurt anything, but, at the very least, perhaps mention that lobose testate amoebae belong to Lobosa (it seems rather peculiar to name one clade but not the other).
• I'm genuinely asking, as I don't even know where I would look in the MOS, but is it proper to write "Alocodera+Padaungiella" the way it is?

That's all I noticed. I'm extremely rusty so my review is a bit of a mess and probably either too strict or not strict enough. Regardless, I'm placing the article on hold, so feel free to take a look at everything I've written at your leisure. Have a good day/night! An anonymous username, not my real name 04:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @An anonymous username, not my real name, thank you for taking the time to review this article. I have modified the article following all your points. I honestly do not know if there is a MOS for the last point, so I rewrote it as "the clade containing Alocodera and Padaungiella" instead. Let me know if there are any further points that need to be fixed. —Snoteleks (Talk) 08:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Awesome work, @Snoteleks. It looks all good to me, so I've passed it. Congrats. An anonymous username, not my real name 22:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 19:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Planocarina marginata, a hyalospheniid amoeba

• ... that many hyalospheniid amoebae construct shells by stealing mineralized particles from the shells of their prey? Source: The Phanerozoic diversification of silica-cycling testate amoebae and its possible links to changes in terrestrial ecosystems
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Snoteleks (talk). Self-nominated at 08:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Hyalospheniidae; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: QPQ not necessary, article recently promoted to GA within time-frame. Images rights appear to be in order. Earwig and spot checks reveal nothing exciting.

• The orginal citation states, generally include a proteinaceous matrix in which mineral elements are embedded, either self-secreted (Euglypha, Quadrulella, Lesquereusia), taken from the surrounding environment (Centropyxis, Difflugia) or from prey organisms (Nebela, Padaungiella, Apodera).
• The page states, Kleptosquamy, the ability of hyalosphenid amoebae to "steal" test scales from their prey, euglyphid amoebae, is hypothesized to be an ancestral trait within the family.
• However, the source 'The Phanerozoic diversification of silica-cycling testate amoebae and its possible links to changes in terrestrial ecosystems' states: Hyalosphenids, a group within arcellinids, are predators of euglyphids. We demonstrate that hyalosphenids can construct shells using silica scales mineralized by the euglyphids. Parsimony analyses of the current hyalosphenid phylogeny indicate that the ability to “steal” euglyphid scales is most likely ancestral in hyalosphenids, which is more direct to the DYK claim.

@Snoteleks:, reviewed DYK citation. I went ahead and swapped the sources out. DYK is good to go. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 16:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)