Talk:Nemertea/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Very well then, very interesting article. It is long, so I understand that the review process won't be brief. Anyway it will be a pleasure to me, as a biologist, to review it! I'll list eventual problems below and immediately strike them once they're dealt with, or a plausible argument is given. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, Daniel Cavallari. --Philcha (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Overall structure

* The structure and organization of the article is acceptable, but could benefit from some small changes and tweaks. Check the following zoology/biology related Featured Articles for instance: American Goldfinch, Polyozellus, Boletus edulis, Pied Currawong. Notice that they all follow a logical order of topics, which is Lead, Taxonomy and/or History and/or Etymology, Description, Distribution and habitat, Behavior & Other topics. Aiming to follow higher standards, we could, for example, merge the History and Taxonomy sections at the top. We could also extract the Movement and Reproduction and life cycle subsections from the description section and add them to the new Behavior and Ecology sections respectively.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• • I like your wide selection of examples. But I think species articles can assume some knowledge of the subject area, while articles about high-level taxa need to explain the basics for each case. In "my" phylum articles (User:Philcha#Improved_and_got_passed_as_GA) I've developed a structure that I think helps beginners by making each section build on the preceding one, starting with a high-level map. And I leave fossil record, taxonomy and phylogeny to the last as these are the most technical sections - especially as nemerteans are weird. --Philcha (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Well then, I understand your point of view. If that is the case, then let's leave it as it is!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

• Per MoS (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)) the lead should contain no more than four paragraphs. With this in mind, I believe the current lead is way too long, specially when you consider the length of the article as a whole; Anatomical descriptions in the lead are too detailed, and should be condensed into a single paragraph, for example.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • In "my" phylum articles (User:Philcha#Improved_and_got_passed_as_GA), reviewers have independently concluded, in 1 case after asking a 2nd opinion (Arthropod, "my" 1st), that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) is a guideline and that the scope of such articles needs more sections. --Philcha (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • This article's lead needs more explanation than most because nemerteans are very strange animals in so many ways: the only coelom is the rhynchocoel, and does not accommodate the gut and related organs; the brain encircles the rhynchocoel rather than the pharynx, as it does in other protosomes that have coeloms; the circulatory system is sluggish and haphazard; and the "sewer system" is AFAIK unique. When preparing for this article I had to unlearn some of what I thought I knew. I even considered adding a preparatory sentence "Nemerteans are very unusual animals" in the lead, but used it in the first section of the body instead. --Philcha (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't use more sections than I think are needed - for example Dragon's Egg's lead has only 2, and Robert Rossen has 4 although it's a reasonably long article. --Philcha (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I've read the past review, it's not a simple matter. This could bring some trouble in a future FA candidacy, but for a GA it will suffice, or so I think. In the end, the fact that it is long doesn't compromise the quality of the prose and relevance of the informations. Ok then! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• I believe citations in the lead should be avoided. Per MoS, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. The fact that Nemertea is a phylum of invertebrate animals also known as ribbon worms or proboscis worms, or that there are other names for the phylum are not quite the challengeable material we are looking for, so the first citations to references (3) and (2) are not really necessary. On the other hand, the citation to reference (4) regarding the length record is a perfect example of correct use of citations in the lead.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that citations in the lead should be avoided - preferably none. But 'also known as "ribbon worms" or "proboscis worms"' and 'included Nemertini, Nemertinea and Rhynchocoela' were challenged. --Philcha (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Were they? Can't see why, but if you say so!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Links and disambiguations

* Link to reference 43 is dead (checked via http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Checklinks);--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• • In the history, at Progress in Nemertean Biology: Development ... (10:51, 19 February 2011) it was ref 39 and had only the DOI. Apparently someone who didn't understand DOI added the URL, which died on 2011-05-09. I've added the right URL. --Philcha (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Two disambiguations needed for Evert and Lateral in Description section.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Fixed. --Philcha (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy section

• The section covers it all, but it is too telegraphic. Since we are writing an encyclopedic article, the text needs a little more flow... What I mean is, the whole section needs more prose, there are too many sequential short sentences. The Classification section of the Arthropod article is a good example to follow.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Using one of "my" articles against me - what a cheek! At Nemertea I used the terse style of Ruppert, Fox & Barnes' book Invertebrate Zoology at that point. I'm not sure MOS' ideas fit so well with pure science articles. It'll be interesting to see what happens when an article that's almost ready hits the streets - the core is a table of comparative performance of a group of predators, and to me that shows their strengths and limitations faster and more vividly than hundreds of words. --Philcha (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I did some minor tweaks here and there, now it feels a little less robotic of sorts! Funny thing, when I was writing Lobatus gigas, translating scientific anatomical descriptions to a more encyclopedic language proved to be a real challenge. One could say it is almost impossible...--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Reproduction and life cycle

• Paranemertes peregrina aside, aren't there any other life expectancy studies or general estimatives? (I'm curious, really!)--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I tried Google Books and Google Scholar for "nemertea lifetime longevity" and got nothing relevant. En passant I found what I paraphrased as "The circulatory vessels are a system of coeloms", another example of how odd nemerteans are - at the cost of building another ciation. --Philcha (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Just curiosity though. With this, I think we are ready for the final evaluation.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

______________

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Writing is clear, objective and precise. More than enough for GA. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   All relevant informations and statements are correctly referenced. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Pretty much everything is covered. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Completely neutral, almost scientific. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

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 havefair use rationales): b(appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A fine article it is! Congratulations! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)