![]() | Ochrophyte has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 15, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Ochrophyte appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 April 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
The references are all wrong in the phylogeny section. Ruggiero et al is NOT a phylogenetic analysis, it is a list of taxa. And the other reference is a french textbook (though doesn't look like any official one I've seen before) that copies phylogenetic trees from very outdated sources. This happened also in Cercozoa, where the edits previous to my own referenced the same french book (and the cladogram shown in the Wikipedia page didn't even match the one in the book, an even weirder occurrence). I'll try to update the phylogeny here as well. ☽ Snoteleks ☾ 19:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
( User:Snoteleks) Thanks for the recent revision. My answer: Why is Actinophryida kept to be a possible sister group to Raphidophyceae? This is not supported by either of the recent references to the cladoram (Barcyté 2021, Bringloe 2020, Graf 2020, Derelle 2016) with only one exception (Cavalier-Smiths 2018) and is not in compliance with the last sentence of the section Phylogeny and its reference (Azuma 2022). Also Adl et al. 2019 (very respected reference) does not consider Actinophryida as part of Ochrophyta. IMO it should be put out of the tree, even if it is marked by "?".
Is Wikispecies the reason?
(Well, is only a minor thing in the contrary to a complete mess in the intro of Actinophryid, e.g. considering Heliozoa aspart of Straamenopiles!). Petr Karel ( talk) 12:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Note I put this article in the protists section of the Good Article listing - if it should be elsewhere, please feel free to put it where it belongs. Ealdgyth ( talk) 15:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs) 15:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly. Ealdgyth ( talk) 15:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk
11:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Snoteleks ( talk). Self-nominated at 15:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ochrophyte; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
This characteristic differentiates them from other eukaryotes such as green algae and plants, with only two membranes., and if so, can it be cited after that sentence? ALT1 is fine, but I need that for ALT0. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Ochrophyte has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 15, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Ochrophyte appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 April 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
The references are all wrong in the phylogeny section. Ruggiero et al is NOT a phylogenetic analysis, it is a list of taxa. And the other reference is a french textbook (though doesn't look like any official one I've seen before) that copies phylogenetic trees from very outdated sources. This happened also in Cercozoa, where the edits previous to my own referenced the same french book (and the cladogram shown in the Wikipedia page didn't even match the one in the book, an even weirder occurrence). I'll try to update the phylogeny here as well. ☽ Snoteleks ☾ 19:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
( User:Snoteleks) Thanks for the recent revision. My answer: Why is Actinophryida kept to be a possible sister group to Raphidophyceae? This is not supported by either of the recent references to the cladoram (Barcyté 2021, Bringloe 2020, Graf 2020, Derelle 2016) with only one exception (Cavalier-Smiths 2018) and is not in compliance with the last sentence of the section Phylogeny and its reference (Azuma 2022). Also Adl et al. 2019 (very respected reference) does not consider Actinophryida as part of Ochrophyta. IMO it should be put out of the tree, even if it is marked by "?".
Is Wikispecies the reason?
(Well, is only a minor thing in the contrary to a complete mess in the intro of Actinophryid, e.g. considering Heliozoa aspart of Straamenopiles!). Petr Karel ( talk) 12:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Note I put this article in the protists section of the Good Article listing - if it should be elsewhere, please feel free to put it where it belongs. Ealdgyth ( talk) 15:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs) 15:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly. Ealdgyth ( talk) 15:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk
11:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Snoteleks ( talk). Self-nominated at 15:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ochrophyte; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
This characteristic differentiates them from other eukaryotes such as green algae and plants, with only two membranes., and if so, can it be cited after that sentence? ALT1 is fine, but I need that for ALT0. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)