Wikipedia:Peer review/Rotating locomotion in living systems/archive2

Rotating locomotion in living systems[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review in preparation for an attempt at FA. There is no previous peer review - the request was archived for being too old. Thanks!

Thanks, —swpb^T 18:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

for the Rolling and wheeled creatures in fiction and legend, I would advise that you don't just list specific examples, and instead try being more broad about it.
"The processes of evolution, as they are presently understood, can help explain why wheeled locomotion has not evolved in multicellular organisms," you don't need to say this. Just start the paragraph with "a complex structure or system will not evolve if..." and then explain that sentence (because it took me a little bit to understand it) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have a lot of paragraphs that don't end in a ref, and both of your notes need refs too User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Use ISBN-13 instead of ISBN-10 as per WP:ISBN using this converter. Bookmark it, it's useful User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of stand-alone single-sentence paragraphs in the Rolling section. There isn't anything wrong with stand-alone pars, but they have article links, so they could be expanded just a bit to a couple sentences or more (but I don't think it'd be a problem in FA) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's it after a quick glance, I'll be back with more User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

To editor Dunkleosteus77: Thank you so much for giving this peer review! This is very helpful information. I wonder if you wouldn't mind clarifying a couple of points for me:

I've added citations for some of the statements lacking them; others I think fall under WP:LEADCITE or WP:BLUE. Are there any particular statements remaining that you think need more support?

The first statement in the Biological barriers to wheeled organisms doesn't have a ref, just in general make sure every paragraph ends with a ref User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: expanding the single-sentence paragraphs in "Rolling"—it's true that the linked articles have more information on these species, but not much more with respect to their rolling movements; given that, what value do you see being added by such expansion? I agree that the visual and logical flow of those short, one-sentence paragraphs is unsatisfying, but I'm wary about solving that by inserting information that's not directly relevant to this article.

that's fine, I was just wondering User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Rolling and wheeled creatures in fiction and legend"—I'm not aware of any works discussing the use of this trope in general terms; I agree that that discussion would be very valuable, if I could cite it. If you can tell me what sort of information you'd hope to see there, it may help me find sources for it. If I can't, do you see that as a major impediment to FA?

I'm not really sure how FA would handle it, I've not often seen this done but I have to admit I haven't seen an article like this, so it may not be a problem User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —swpb^T 17:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it seems File:Flagellum base diagram en.svg is an example of WP:OR (as in it's not factually accurate), I recommend using a different picture User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about the source line for File:Rolling Resistance.PNG, as it may also be OR, so if you can, find another picture. If you can't, then just add a source needed tag in the source line User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've addressed each of those issues. Will be happy to address anything else you see. —swpb^T 13:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think The Straight Dope is a reliable source User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the link for Cluster isn't working, and you don't need to say "via Google books" at the end User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In ref no. 42, remove the " No. 406: A Man with Wheels?"

Thanks! I've held off changing the "via=" parameters for now, just to see what FA reviewers say; it seems like a possibly helpful parameter that must be in the citation template for a reason. —swpb^T 16:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commments from Brianboulton[edit]

As I have undertaken to mentor this article with a view to a future WP:FAC, I am carrying out a detailed review, using the Featured article criteria as my yardstick. For the present I am concentrating on prose; other issues will be dealt with later. Overall, I think this is a quality article, well worth the extra work necessary to get it to featured status.

The article employs a certain amount of unavoidable technical prose which might create difficulties for the general reader. I don't think this is a serious issue here – as someone with no knowledge of the subject area, and little familiarity with science topics in general, I found no real difficulty in reading and understanding maybe 75% of the article – but there are still a number of areas where I think readability could be improved, or where the prose otherwise needs attention:

In the "Rolling" subsection, in "Known instances...", you have four short single-sentence paragraphs. I recommend you combine these together into a single paragraph, held together by a brief introductory phrase, as shown below. I think that the tumbleweed example, being as it were the odd one out, should be placed at the end of the paragraph.

Other examples include dung beetles, who form spherical balls of animal excrement which they roll with their bodies. Although it is the dung ball that rolls rather than the beetle itself, the beetles face many of the same mechanical difficulties that rolling organisms contend with.[6] Keratinocytes, a type of skin cell, migrate with a rolling motion during the process of wound healing.[9][10] Rotifers, although their Latin name means "wheel-bearer", do not have any rotating structures, but rather a ring of rhythmically beating cilia used for feeding and propulsion.[11] Tumbleweeds are the above-ground portions of certain plants, which separate from their root structure and roll in the wind to distribute their seeds.[8]

I'm not sure combining these into one paragraph is the way to go – they're really each the odd one out: dung beetles for rolling their food instead of themselves; keratinocytes for being cells in a larger organism rather than organisms themselves; rotifers for not actually rotating at all, but having a name and motion that suggests they do; tumbleweeds for rolling passively.

My role in this review is to help get the article ready for a successful FAC. I accept your judgement about the order in which you present your examples, but my concern about the mini-paragraphs remains, and is likely to be a fsctor at FAC, where in my experience, single-sentence paragraphs are generally disparaged. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt your FAC experience, but would you be opposed to seeing how this particular case is received? It's hard for me to see these holding together as one paragraph, but if that's what the reviewers want, we can do it.

Free rotation – Macroscopic: It is not clear what purpose is being served by the process described here. Can you elucidate a little?

Are you asking for more information on why the style rotates? I think the mechanical action probably breaks up food particles, like in a gizzard, but I'm not sure even the scientists who've studied these organisms can say that definitively.

I'm saying that the information is a little obscure, and asking if it can be reworded for greater clarity, for the benefit of the general reader. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a small edit to the first sentence that I hope brings more clarity. Are there other specific parts of that paragraph that you think need clarification? Is it a question of sentence strucure, vocabulary, or something else?

Extended content

"The eukaryotic flagellum, also called a cilium or undulipodium, is non-homologous with—i.e., structurally and evolutionarily distinct from—prokaryotic flagella". This is an example of introducing unnecesssary jargon – why not just say: "The eukaryotic flagellum, also called a cilium or undulipodium, is structurally and evolutionarily distinct from prokaryotic flagella."? There are other instances in the article where the prose could be simplified without loss of meaninwhereg.

Done.

Developmental and anatomical constraints - first paragraph contains no citations – the "Note 1" at the end is itself not cited to a source.

Fixed, I hope. This paragraph was only meant as a summary-style intro of the subsections that follow; I've pulled the most relevant of those references up to the top. The first part of note 1 just restates this summary (I've weakened it a bit to ensure that); the second part, I think, is WP:BLUE territory: it's obvious, even tautological, that the two examples are not precluded from existing, since they do exist; I'm just using that statement of the obvious to highlight some limits to the arguments about evolution and development that went before.

What is meant by "relative inertia"?

Fixed – the word "relative" wasn't serving any purpose. "Inertia" is used in the standard sense.

In the "Friction" subsection there's a redundant "as well" in the third line.

Removed.

It's not necessary to detail Gerhard Scholtz's credentials. Just "Gerhard Scholtz of the Humboldt University of Berlin" would do.

Done.

"Another potential problem that arises at the interface between wheel and axle (or axle and body) is the ability of an organism to transfer materials across this interface." It seems that the problem is one of "inability", or at the very least "limited ability", rather than "ability".

Done.

The phrase "may not in fact be the "missed opportunity" of biology that it first seems" (in "Disadvantages of wheels") reads like editorialising. Can you attribute this to a source? If not, I suggest you simplify to something like: "may not be a biological missed opportunity." In any event I'd delete the "On the contrary" that follows.

I want to take a crack at sourcing this – I know at least a few of the sources I already have start from this position, that a lack of wheels is surprising, and that one would expect to see them in nature. If I can't source it reasonably, I'll remove it as you describe. I've sourced that sentiment to Scholtz.

"stiff wheels"; Is there any kind of wheel that is not "stiff", i.e. rigid?

Yes – flexible/deformable wheels appear often in the literature and in practice. Tires, e.g., introduce flexibility in car wheels. A solid car wheel would offer greater fuel efficiency, but would cause a terrible ride. To some degree, no real wheel is perfectly stiff; perfect stiffness is a simplifying assumption in physics analysis, for when the flexibility of a wheel contributes negligibly to its performance.

"a vehicle loses energy to the deformation of its wheels": How are wheels "deformed"? The word suggests that they lose their shape – surely, that's not the case? Does the word have an alternative meaning? Some copyediting in this paragraph will be necessary, to reduce the repetition of "resistance".

That is in fact exactly the case – the wheels change shape, albeit elastically (they spring back). I've taken out some instances of the word "resistance" in that paragraph. For the remaining instances, it may be detrimental to replace it with a common synonym, since it is a precise technical term in this context, especially in the phrase "rolling resistance".

"only at extremely low Reynolds numbers (i.e., viscosity-dominated flows) – another example of jargon followed by "i.e". You could always use a pipe-link: "only at extremely low viscosity-dominated flows".

That's tricky – a link to Reynolds number with the display text "viscosity-dominated flows" isn't very intuitive, but I don't want to lose the link to Reynolds number. "Viscosity-dominated" is one effect of a low Reynolds number, but the two terms are not synonyms. I don't think the term is too technical for this article.

"...log-normal; i.e., small obstacles are far more common than larger ones." Another case of jargon followed by "i.e". This could easily be "...implies that in the distribution of irregularities in natural terrains, small obstacles are far more common than larger ones."

The "plain English" explanation "small obstacles are far more common than larger ones" does not precisely convey the "log-normal" relationship that Bekker found, and it's that relationship that implies the scale-free quality mentioned after. I think the term is only as technical as it needs to be to capture the exact meaning.

Perhaps you could employ a slight rewording that avoids using "i.e"? Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to "that is" (English is less obscure than Latin, right?)

Extended content

"Without articulation, this can be an impossible position from which to recover." Uncited statement at paragraph end.

I'll look into how I could source that, but it may be WP:BLUE; this is just saying that a wheeled vehicle that's flipped over (like a car) won't typically be able to use its wheels to right itself, which may be obvious enough to not need sourcing.

The "Rolling creatures" subsection in the "Fiction and legend" section consists of eight short staccato paragraphs. I wonder whether we need quite so many examples from the fictional world? Also, the prose would flow better if some of these short paragraphs were combined.
The same criticism, but more so, applies to the fictional "Wheeled creatures" subsection. Ten examples seems far too many – it's the fictional, not the real world we're dealing with here – and again the staccato paragraphing affects readability.

I'll take these two together. I've tried to use Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content as my guide for what to include. Each of the works I've included (except for "Microbe") is at least notable enough on its own for an article, each makes prominent use of the trope in question, and there are not very many works that do so, making those that do more significant. I can see a case for dropping "Microbe", but among the others, it's not clear to me which if any works deserve precedence. As to combining paragraphs, I was always taught that a paragraph is supposed to be united by a common subject. I think, as with the real examples of rolling higher up, that stringing sentences about disparate subjects together improves visual flow at the cost of logical flow, and I'm not sure I agree with making that trade-off. I do agree this section is tricky, but I'd like to see if there are any other ideas about how to handle it, and what sort of support they'd have.

I think you are mistaken in using Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content as any sort of a guide, if you are contemplating an FAC. The popular culture/trivia approach is strictly contrary to the FAC ethos. I don't agree, either, that these mini-paragraphs are about "disparate subjects"; they are all examples related to the same section headings. And there are far too many of them – 17 fictional examples – to the extent that they unbalance the article. I believe you need to reconsider your approach here.

First let me say that I'm not opposed to making big changes to this section, I just want to do so with a good understanding of what we're doing and why. I know that pop culture content can be problematic, but I'm not aware of explicit guidance that its inclusion is contrary to FAC – can you point me to the guidance you're working from? If WP:POPCULTURE is not a useful guide for FACs, do you know of more appropriate guidance I should rely on? If the answer is just to present fewer examples, what number would be appropriate, and how would you go about choosing among them? If balance is the crux of the issue, would a split be a reasonable answer?

WP guidance documents are all very well, but they are not definitive in all circumstances. The guidance I'm working from is my extensive practical experience of the FAC process, as a nominator, reviewer and one-time TFA coordinator. This has given me some insight into what is and is not acceptable within the FA criteria – for example, there is a concern that "popular culture" can easily descend into trivia. My gut feeling is that three or four examples from each of the two subsections – "Rolling creatures" and "Wheeled creatures" – would be ample, making it clear that these are examples from a wider range. How you choose them is up to you – I'm not able to advise here. I'm going to leave this one with you; I have some points to raise on referencing which I'll post in the next couple of days. Brianboulton (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've just split the whole section to a new article and left a greatly abbreviated summary in its place. I take it you're ok with the other remaining prose issues. —swpb^T 17:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A good solution. My only remaining prose concern is the short paragraphs near the beginning of the article, but I'm prepared to see what other reviewrs say, when you take this to FAC. My comments on sources issues will follow shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's it as far as prose issues are concerned. There are other points to raise, mainly concerning references and images, to which I'll return later. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Brianboulton: Thank you enormously for this detailed assessment. I've taken each of the points you raised in turn, and replied in blue above. On the points I've questioned, I'm happy to revisit until we concur, or at least until you think it's mature enough to nominate. Feel free to refactor however you need to. Thanks again. —swpb^T 20:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your responses to my prose concerns are fine, the issues I've highlighted above need further consideration. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've collapsed the points you say are fine, to focus on the ones you still have concerns about, and replied in blue above as before. —swpb^T 17:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources/citations issues

A quick survey of the "References" list has indicated a number of areas requiring attention. The following list is not exhaustive.

Retrieval dates: these should be provided for all citations to websites, including cases where a website is hosting an article originally published in print form. Examples of missing retrieval dates are refs 1, 3, 6, 15, 25, etc (there are almost certainly more).

My impression was that a retrieval date is only needed when the source is not archived, and that adding a retrieval date in addition to an archive link just adds clutter without adding value. —swpb^T 17:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article behind paywalls should have the (subscription required) template added. There are numerous instances.

Fixed. —swpb^T 17:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google links to books should only be given when the relevant pages of the book are open online. Simply using the google link to the book's cover or title page is of no value to the reader. In the case of ref 62, the google link is to a different edition of the book from the one that you cite.

Fixed; replaced with links to specific pages, except for fiction books where the book as a whole is being cited. Removed GBooks links where preview is not available. —swpb^T 17:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journals should be given their full titles, not abbreviations such as "Biophys. J." or "J. Mol. Microbiol. Biotechnol."

Fixed. —swpb^T 17:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All refs should include publisher information. This appears to be lacking from ref 15.

Fixed (source is self-published). —swpb^T 17:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref. 53: What makes this a high quality reliable source?

Replaced with a better source. —swpb^T 17:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref. 55: What information is being provided here?

Nothing really besides the date; I've removed this source as it's not really needed. —swpb^T 17:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the nature of the source cited in ref 59?

(Now ref 58) This is a citation of the first version of the video game itself; I've added the "platform" parameter to hopefully make that more clear. —swpb^T 17:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you may have to re-argue some of your points at FAC, but I think you've defended your stall well. I haven't any further comments to make: please ping me before you nominate at FAC. This is on the whole an impressive article, and I expect it to do well there. Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your help! I will most likely nominate on Monday, and I'll be sure to ping you first. —swpb^T 20:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]