Talk:Echiura/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: SkyGazer 512 (talk · contribs) 15:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll take this one on for review. This is a topic I am familiar with and find fascinating, and I think I can apply the criteria fairly and accurately. Overall, it appears to be well-written and well-sourced, but there are a few minor issues that I will present as soon as I've thoroughly read the whole article.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this on. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Worms that have secondarily lost their segmentation is a bit confusing in the lead; when I first read it, it seemed like it was Polychaeta that contains worms without segmentation. Any way to reword this to make it clear that it's actually the exact opposite that is the case, i.e. that Echiura worms aren't segmented but Polychaeta are?

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• The info about fossils (e.g., the first fossil found and that the worms fossilize poorly) isn't sourced and does not seem to be mentioned anywhere other than the lead.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• What makes Eat in Korea reliable? It doesn't look reliable to me.

It is not a reliable source in general, but for establishing that these worms are eaten in Korea, it seems adequate to me. (I couldn't find anything better). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It's true that it would probably do for the fact that worms are eaten in Korea, but I really would prefer a better source for the aphrodisiac information. I've searched around Google a bit for this; a source like this or something similar might could work, or at least be more reliable than the current source used (sort of unrelated comment, but I'm already thinking of a lot of possible DYK hooks for these worms based on their use as food :)).--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• They fossilize poorly and the earliest known fossil specimen is from the Upper Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) It feels a bit wonky to me to use "and" to connect these two clauses in this particular circumstance, but then again I can't think of a better way for this without having two very short and choppy sentences, so unless you can think of better wording I don't think this will be a dealbreaker.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• In the Taxonomy section, is there any particular reason why you can't display Peter Simon Pallas's full name, rather than hide it behind a link?

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• In the mid-nineteenth century Echiura was placed, alongside Sipuncula, and Priapulida in the now defunct class Gephyrea (meaning a "bridge") in Annelida I feel like the punctuation is a bit jumbled here. Why is there a comma after Sipuncula and none after Priapulida? Echiura was placed, alongside Sipuncula and Priapulida, in the now defunct class Gephyrea should be correct.
• I don't think Online zoologists is reliable, it seems to be a blog site.
  • Never mind, strike that; it looks like the author of that particular blog is an expert on the subject and actually has a Wikipedia article.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 16:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• This may be just my opinion and it is a nitpick, but the translucent green Listriolobus pelodes being an example seems a bit verbose; how about simply "such as the translucent green Listriolobus pelodes"? Not a dealbreaker, however.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• I think either Echiurus can also swim by use of the proboscis and by contractions of the body wall or the sentence prior to that needs to be worded. By using the word "also", it makes it seem like this is different than what was described in the previous sentence. If this is the case, could it be made a bit more clear what the difference is? Looking at those two sentences as a reader, I'm not clear on how the moving behavior of Echiurus exactly contrasts with that of spoon worms in general.

Clarified. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, that makes a lot more sense now.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Some spoon worms live in U-shaped tunnels in sand, mud or other soft substrate seems out of place. The previous paragraph talks about the proboscis and contains details on how it is used to feed, and in the rest of this paragraph containing the tunnel/substrate sentence it is talking about the same. But what does the fact that spoon worms live in U-shaped tunnels have to do with any of this? Also, the second sentence of this same paragraph, Echiurus for example extends its proboscis from the rim of its burrow with the ventral side on the substrate seems worded a bit wonky, "for example" doesn't seem to be the right set of words to use here considering it is not an example of what is stated in the previous sentence. I think the best thing to do here would be to move the first sentence of this paragraph somewhere else, and incorporate the second sentence somewhere else as well, either in this paragraph or the previous one.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Large particles are squeezed out of the net and are eaten by other invertebrates living commensally in the burrow Nitpick but I think the second instance of "are" is redundant (i.e. Large particles are squeezed out of the net and eaten by other invertebrates should do just fine).

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• eaten by other invertebrates living commensally in the burrow. These typically include a small crab, a scale worm and often a fish lurking just inside the back entrance. Just a suggestion, not a requirement: maybe replace this with eaten by other invertebrates living commensally in the burrow, such as small crabs, scale worms, and fish? I think that wording is better, but it's your choice. It may also be a good idea to somehow keep just inside the back entrance in there.

I've left this, because the source implied that there was usually only one of each type of commensal. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine with me.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Other spoon worms conceal themselves in rock crevices, empty gastropod shells, sand dollar tests and similar places What does this have to do with feeding? Do they conceal themselves in these places waiting for food? If so, that should be clarified, because the rest of the paragraph mentions nothing about where spoon worms conceal themselves waiting for food.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• The second sentence of the "As food" section should probably be reworded. It could be interpreted as Echiura being called "penis fish" specifically in South Korea, which I'm pretty sure is not the case. Maybe the first two sentences could be changed to something like: Spoon worms are eaten in southeast Asia, and are known as Gaebul (개불) in South Korea. Because of their resemblance to the human penis, they are sometimes referred to as penis fish and are considered to be aphrodisiacs. I'm not sure combining the Gaebul info into the first sentence would be the best option possible, but just giving some ideas. Then again, the whole section may need to be rewritten anyways because of what I said above about Eat in Korea as a source.

I have rewritten this section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The rewrite looks great, thanks. However, my original concern – The second sentence of the "As food" section should probably be reworded. It could be interpreted as Echiura being called "penis fish" specifically in South Korea, which I'm pretty sure is not the case. – still applies.--SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 20:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• What does "Gaebul" translate to? (it looks like the source says "marine spoon worms")

The source is probably right. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I was being a bit unclear; I'm suggesting for you to add to the article what "Gaebul" translates to.--SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 20:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• For According to the World Register of Marine Species: in the List of families section, shouldn't the relevant WoRMS article be inline cited?

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Also in the List of families section, What does (currently empty) next to the family Thalassematidae mean and why is the family name italicized?

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• According to WoRMS, family Ikedidae is actually in Bonelliida and Thalassematidae in Echiurida, currently the page seems to have the opposite.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• The taxobox states the description of Echiura as "Newby, 1940", but there's no mention of this in the Taxonomy section.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm seeing a bit of close paraphrasing from this source in the Taxonomy section. I know some of its hard to reword without changing the meaning, but if you could rearrange or change some of the words as much as you can that would be great.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• For ref 22 (WoRMS), can you put Echiuroidea in quotes? That would be consistent and correct, I think. I would actually suggest you just use {{cite WoRMS}} there, but that part is by no means a requirement for GA (and explicitly listed at WP:GACRNOT).

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• In some species the proboscis is ribbonlike Shouldn't ribbonlike be hyphenated?

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Spoon worms vary in size from less than a centimetre in length to more than a metre This isn't sourced or mentioned in the body. I would suggest you add this info to the Anatomy section, along with a source, and it would also be a good idea to mention which species are less than a centimetre and which ones more than a metre.

I left it in the lead and added more information elsewhere. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

That's it for now, but I'll be doing a few more spot-checks to make sure I didn't miss anything, so there may be more issues to address (although they will likely be minor and minimal). The list so far is in no particular order besides the order for which I noticed these issues, as I am not good at organizing things. :-) Thank you for your work on this article, Cwmhiraeth!--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 16:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I've done another spot-check and the second set of issues are as follows. I'll likely do one more check against each individual GA criterion and then put this on hold for the issues to be addressed (although if you'd like to go ahead and start addressing them now that would be great as well). After that, this can pass!--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• The source provided for Newby, 1940 in the taxobox does not seem to support that material; in fact, it says it's "Not documented". However, I happened to notice that source #3 does support that info, so that ref or another one should be used instead of the WoRMS one.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• The proboscis is used for feeding and has rolled-in margins and a groove on the ventral surface. The distal end is sometimes forked. does not seem to be supported by ref 13.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• The proboscis additionally has a sensory function does not seem to be supported by the source provided either, unless I'm missing something obvious.

Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• What is an "interface grazer"?

I don't know. WoRMS seems to like the term but I could not find it defined. I guess I could substitute "herbivore". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• A few are found in deep waters including at abyssal depths; in fact more than half the 70 species in Bonelliidae live below 3,000 m (10,000 ft) I don't think 70 species would be considered "a few"; that's nearly a third of the entire taxon.

Good point. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Lead: Once treated as a separate phylum; this is not mentioned in the Taxonomy section and it has no source supporting it.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• In the "List of families" section, why does Echiuridae not have its description mentioned? The WoRMS entry supports such info (Quatrefages, 1847).

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• The info about the length of the extended proboscis is mentioned in both the Behaviour and Anatomy sections; such duplicate info should be fixed.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Could the layout of the proboscis part of the first paragraph in the Anatomy section be tweaked a bit? First it talks about the appearance/characteristics of the proboscis, then it talks about one use of it (feeding), then it talks more about the appearance/characteristics of it, and finally it talks about other uses of it. All that really needs to be changed is The proboscis is used for feeding moved to directly before Respiration also takes place through the proboscis, simply for the sake of keeping related info grouped together.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I will work through the points you raise, probably at the weekend. Some of them refer to information that was in the article before I started working on it. For example it had eight references in the lead at that time and only 16 altogether, and I took the ones that were there on trust. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course, that absolutely makes sense. Take as much time as you need (erm, with some limits, of course :)). Thank you for addressing the issues so far.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I have dealt with all your issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Thanks a lot; the article looks much better now! Most of the issues I pointed out have been addressed very well, but I've left comments regarding the As food section rewrite as well as the Gaebul translation, so I would appreciate if you could look at those when you get a chance. Now that you've dealt with almost all of these issues, I'll look over the article carefully a final time and see if any of the GA criteria are not yet met; once any issues from that are addressed, this will likely pass. :-)--SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 20:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I have rephrased that section, but basically I don't know, and can't find out the literal translation of "gaebul" and whether it refers to spoon worms in general or the species Urechis unicinctus in particular. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, that looks fine to me.--SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 13:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I've done my final thorough spot-check and just have five minor issues that may prevent this from meeting the good article criteria, as follows. This will likely be able to pass once these issues are responded to. I've made two minor edits to the article, as they seemed uncontroversial and not worth bringing up here, but you are welcome to to revert them or discuss them if you disagree.--SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 23:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Their bodies are generally cylindrical with two wider regions separated by a narrower region do any sources allow you to provide any more detail about what these "regions" are? The article talks about the trunk of the Echiurans in several other parts, so I wonder if that's one of the regions. Not a deal-breaker, however.

I have only met them being called the anterior and posterior parts, and trunk seems to be used for the whole body apart from the proboscis. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• absorbing oxygen through the body wall of both trunk and proboscis I could be wrong, but wouldn't "both the trunk and proboscis" be correct grammar?

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• with the two anterior chaetae being driven into the sediment perhaps add an explanation of what chaetae are? This is the first occurrence of the term in the article and it doesn't seem to explain what exactly this means anywhere else.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• You've correctly updated the families according to WoRMS in the List of families section, as I suggested, but now you'll also need to do so in the taxobox (or simply link to the families section in the taxobox, I don't know what practice more common).

You're right. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Since this is not considered a phylum anymore, should {{Life on Earth}} be removed? If we did that, then Echiura should probably be removed from the template as well.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to pass this now, your responses are satisfactory. Currently, the article is well-written and complies with the manual of style guidelines that the GACR require, the article is cited to reliable sources with no unsourced material, and I cannot detect any copyvio. The article is an appropriate length and the reader is not left wanting, it is neutral, stable, and well-illustrated, and the images are appropriate and licensed correctly. I believe the criteria are clearly met now. I'm also going to go ahead and remove this from {{Life on Earth}}. Thank you for your work on the article and congratulations on another GA, Cwmhiraeth!--SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 14:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for a thorough review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.