Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Isopoda/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 04:09, 5 September 2014 [1].


Isopoda[edit]

Nominator(s): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an order of crustaceans that live in the sea, in freshwater and on land, the best known example probably being the woodlouse. Earlier in the year the article became a GA, having a very thorough review undertaken by Sunrise which was helped by considerable input from Esoxid (who knows a lot more about isopods than I do). I hope you will find the article interesting and worthy of becoming a FA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. :-) Sunrise (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Aa77zz[edit]

  • Lead: "Isopods are detritivores and browsers, carnivores (including predators and scavengers), ectoparasites, mostly of fish, some endoparasites, and filter feeders." This sentence is rather complicated and I don't think the word "some" should be there. Aa77zz (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've simplified it. Better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good in my opinion. Succinct in the lede and the detail in the body. Esoxidtalk•contribs 02:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peter Isotalo[edit]

Looks like a very nice, appropriately concise treatment of an order to me. Some initial remarks before I go into more detail and depth:

  • The lead starts off by referring to an order, but then consistently refers to the members of the order as a group. So why not "isopods" right from the start? More of a thought than a criteria for support, though.
I'm not sure what you mean. I tend to use "groups" periodically so as to avoid excessive use of the word "isopods". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I stand corrected.
Peter Isotalo 10:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel there's some unnecessary technical language in the article. By "unnecessary" I mean terms that could be explained with a few extra words or are highly specialized. Some examples: "derived" (somewhat difficult to grasp even after I checked the link), "dorsoventrally" (no link at all and I suck at spatial terms), "thoracic" ("of the thorax" perhaps?). There's "vermiform interstitial" and "Gondwanan" which seem a bit specific to me. On the other hand, sentences like "The isopod body plan consists of..." are exemplary with basic explanations followed by specific terminology in parentheses.
Done, plus a few other technical terms. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This map is very busy with colored regions, figures and whatnot. And though you get it after a while, it's quite meaningless in anything but sizeable resolutions. Is there anything simpler out there?
Isopods occur worldwide so a range map is unhelpful and I can't find a better map. I could just remove it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, please keep it. It's a tad confusing, but not bad enough to merit removal.
Peter Isotalo 10:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll provide more commentary within the next few days or so. Peter Isotalo 20:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I have dealt with them as best I can and look forward to more. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made some tweaks myself.[2] Surprisingly little to fix, I must say. Good job overall. Looks like a well-rounded, well-written article. Support.
Peter Isotalo 19:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your tweaks and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

  • Images are all licensed as CC (own work or downloaded with complete source/author info) - OK.
  • The original CC license for the 2 Diversity-images is a bit hidden, but can be found in the source PLOS articles (DOI see image information) - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you GermanJoe. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Don't mix {{citation}} and the {{cite}} family of templates
  • Edition formatting is inconsistent
  • FN6: missing accessdate
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for publishers
  • Compare formatting of FNs 14 and 21. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the source review. I have made the alterations you suggested. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim[edit]

Looks comprehensive, my main concerns are with readability. While it isn't possible to avoid technical language altogether, I think you can help your reader more. Some examples

  • Isopoda is an order of peracarid crustaceans.— very off-putting as first sentence. Why not open with something like Isopoda is a group of crustaceans that includes woodlice and sea-slaters before launching into taxonomy?
See below. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name Isopoda has been derived from the Greek roots ἴσος (iso-, meaning "same") and πούς (pod-, pous, meaning "foot")— why "has been"? Isn't this the current accepted derivation?
You must have been looking at an old version of the article because that change was made before your comment! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could help your readers by glossing technical terms either parenthetically eg oostegites (plate-like flaps) or by piping eg seabed-dwelling
Working on this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In places, you appear to have almost deliberately made things difficult. Examples include gnathopods instead of the linked appendage, and the obscure classical plural "penes" rather than the familiar English plural "penises" (I've never seen the former in anything I've read)
Changed the latter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not far off, just needs to be more accessible Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In general, information is lost when technical terms are avoided, e.g. "gnathopod" is a special case of "appendage" which doesn't have its own article, which is why it redirects to the explanation in the more general article. On your first point, all species groupings are taxonomic groupings, so IMO it would be improper to define it without at least calling it an order. Nothing wrong with something like "Isopoda is an order of peracarid crustaceans which include [examples]" though. Sunrise (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, Jim. I have removed the word "peracarid" from the first sentence as being unhelpful and have rewritten that sentence and a fair proportion of the lead. Better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Changes improve the readability of what, realistically, is never going to be an easy article, Happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "may occupy one or more of these feeding habits": It doesn't sound right to occupy a habit.
  • "first known instance": "first" in what sense? (only? first discovered?)
  • "they need to conserve water, often living in a humid environment and sheltering under stones, bark, debris or leaf litter.": That's mine. Fix it if it's wrong, please.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That was helpful, and I have attended to your suggestions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck by Little Jerry[edit]

  • From the article: Isopods lack an obvious carapace (shell), which is reduced to a "cephalic shield" covering only the head. This means that the gill-like structures, which in other related groups are protected by the carapace, are instead found on specialised limbs on the abdomen'
    • From the source [8]: Because they lack a carapace, the gills, which are covered by the carapace in other groups, are absent, so they breathe using specialised lamellar gill-like pleopods ("swimming limbs") on the posterior section of the body."
    • From the source [3]: (2)the carapace reduced to a cephalic shield... (7)abdominal branchial structures...
  • From the article: Some members of the family Cirolanidae suck the blood of fish, and others, in the family Aegidae, consume the blood, fins, tail and flesh and can kill the fish in the process
    • From the source [17]: One very large group of isopods, the Family Cirolanidae, is comprised of carrion-eating scavengers and parasites. The parasites may prey on and suck the blood of some fishes.... The isopod [Aegids] then swims rapidly up and fastens on to the fish, and proceeds to eat its fins and tail. The bug then slices open the fish and eats all its blood, proceeding then to eat the lateral muscle bands and, when they are done, they discard the guts and skeleton.
  • From the article: They [Isopods] were primitive, short-tailed members of the suborder Phreatoicidea. At that time, Phreatoicideans were marine organisms with a cosmopolitan distribution. Nowadays, the members of this formerly widespread suborder form relic populations in freshwater environments in South Africa, India and Oceania, the greatest number of species being in Tasmania. Other primitive, short-tailed suborders include Asellota, Microcerberidea, Calabozoidea and the terrestrial Oniscidea.
    • From the source [14]: In general, the primitive suborders (e.g. Phreatoicidea, Asellota, Microcerberidea, Calabozoidea, Oniscidea, Valvifera).... Phylogenetic analyses and the fossil record agree that the earliest isopods (and the most primitive living species) are members of the short-tailed suborder Phreatoicidea. Today, phreatoicids have a strictly freshwater Gondwanan distribution, with most species occurring in the rivers and lakes of Tasmania. The earliest fossil records of isopods are phreatoicids dating from the Pennsylvanian (the Carboniferous Period of the Paleozoic Era), 300 million year ago. However, Paleozoic phreatoicids were marine forms and they had a cosmopolitan distribution; their fossils have been found in marine deposits from Europe and North America. Thus, the present-day Gondwanan freshwater distribution of these primitive crustaceans represents a relic, or refugial biogeographic pattern.

Looks alright to me. LittleJerry (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the spotchecks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Isopoda/archive1&oldid=1136458530"