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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
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)
Worms that have secondarily lost their segmentationis 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?
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.
In the mid-nineteenth century Echiura was placed, alongside Sipuncula, and Priapulida in the now defunct class Gephyrea (meaning a "bridge") in AnnelidaI 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 Gephyreashould be correct.
the translucent green Listriolobus pelodes being an exampleseems a bit verbose; how about simply "such as the translucent green Listriolobus pelodes"? Not a dealbreaker, however.
Echiurus can also swim by use of the proboscis and by contractions of the body wallor 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.
Some spoon worms live in U-shaped tunnels in sand, mud or other soft substrateseems 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 substrateseems 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.
Large particles are squeezed out of the net and are eaten by other invertebrates living commensally in the burrowNitpick but I think the second instance of "are" is redundant (i.e.
Large particles are squeezed out of the net and eaten by other invertebratesshould do just fine).
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 entrancein there.
Other spoon worms conceal themselves in rock crevices, empty gastropod shells, sand dollar tests and similar placesWhat 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.
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.
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)
According to the World Register of Marine Species:in the List of families section, shouldn't the relevant WoRMS article be inline cited?
(currently empty)next to the family Thalassematidae mean and why is the family name italicized?
In some species the proboscis is ribbonlikeShouldn't ribbonlike be hyphenated?
Spoon worms vary in size from less than a centimetre in length to more than a metreThis 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.
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 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.
The proboscis additionally has a sensory functiondoes not seem to be supported by the source provided either, unless I'm missing something obvious.
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.
Once treated as a separate phylum; this is not mentioned in the Taxonomy section and it has no source supporting it.
The proboscis is used for feedingmoved to directly before
Respiration also takes place through the proboscis, simply for the sake of keeping related info grouped together.
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 regiondo 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.
absorbing oxygen through the body wall of both trunk and proboscisI could be wrong, but wouldn't "both the trunk and proboscis" be correct grammar?
with the two anterior chaetae being driven into the sedimentperhaps 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.
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)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
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)
Worms that have secondarily lost their segmentationis 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?
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.
In the mid-nineteenth century Echiura was placed, alongside Sipuncula, and Priapulida in the now defunct class Gephyrea (meaning a "bridge") in AnnelidaI 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 Gephyreashould be correct.
the translucent green Listriolobus pelodes being an exampleseems a bit verbose; how about simply "such as the translucent green Listriolobus pelodes"? Not a dealbreaker, however.
Echiurus can also swim by use of the proboscis and by contractions of the body wallor 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.
Some spoon worms live in U-shaped tunnels in sand, mud or other soft substrateseems 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 substrateseems 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.
Large particles are squeezed out of the net and are eaten by other invertebrates living commensally in the burrowNitpick but I think the second instance of "are" is redundant (i.e.
Large particles are squeezed out of the net and eaten by other invertebratesshould do just fine).
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 entrancein there.
Other spoon worms conceal themselves in rock crevices, empty gastropod shells, sand dollar tests and similar placesWhat 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.
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.
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)
According to the World Register of Marine Species:in the List of families section, shouldn't the relevant WoRMS article be inline cited?
(currently empty)next to the family Thalassematidae mean and why is the family name italicized?
In some species the proboscis is ribbonlikeShouldn't ribbonlike be hyphenated?
Spoon worms vary in size from less than a centimetre in length to more than a metreThis 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.
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 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.
The proboscis additionally has a sensory functiondoes not seem to be supported by the source provided either, unless I'm missing something obvious.
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.
Once treated as a separate phylum; this is not mentioned in the Taxonomy section and it has no source supporting it.
The proboscis is used for feedingmoved to directly before
Respiration also takes place through the proboscis, simply for the sake of keeping related info grouped together.
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 regiondo 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.
absorbing oxygen through the body wall of both trunk and proboscisI could be wrong, but wouldn't "both the trunk and proboscis" be correct grammar?
with the two anterior chaetae being driven into the sedimentperhaps 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.
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)