Talk:Arthropod/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. I take this on with some trepidation because of its length. I will start with these comments and may add more later. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is far too long. See WP:LEAD. - "The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article."
Under "Description" you should remove the heading "Definition" as it contains only a few short sentences, so it appears unnecessary.
The formatting needs adjusting. Some sections have chunks of white space due to the placement of images. e.g. the "Segmentation", "Evolutionary family tree" and "Interaction with humans" section.
Footnote ref #14 is strange. If you want to reference two books, can you not have two footnotes?
One sentence paragraphs are discouraged, unless they are for effect. You have several in the lead, for example.
The prose needs checking, for example: "Most arthropods lay eggs,[31] but scorpions are viviparous, in other words produce live young after the eggs have hatched inside the mother." - seems to be missing a subject in the second clause or something.
Be careful of wikilinking common words and linking the same word more than once, per Overlinking and underlinking
Under "Senses" you have a link to a main article in the middle of the section. This should go under the section heading.
There is a paragraph under "Evolutionary family tree" that seems very long. Can you break it up?
Use unnecessary words as little as possible, such as "however" and "also" - Especially if you intend to go to FAC, this is important. Another word they hate at FAC is "would", but you use of it seems appropriate.
It is a very long article, even by FAC standards, so if there are ways you could condense it, that would be good.
As far as I can tell, the referencing and footnote format looks good!

I may add more comments, as I have not read through the article thoroughly yet. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mattisse, thanks for coming in to review this article.

It might be best to leave the lead and the formatting issues you raised until we've resolved all points relating to the main text. The same may apply to wikilinking, in case things get moved around. I usually aim to wikilink significant / technical terms at their first occurrence per section - does that seem reasonable to you?

Re footnote #14, I wish reviewers or Wikipedia or whatever could agree a policy one this - the GA reviewer for Howard Staunton explicitly asked for multiple citations at the same location and not re-used elsewhere to be consolidated in a bullet list.

I've combined some paras in the lead.

In "Reproduction and development" I've combined 2 paras and edited to "scorpions are viviparous, in other words they produce live young".

Re "however" and "also", perhaps we should take these case by case.

I've moved

up.

Re the apparently long final para of section "Evolutionary family tree", I think it only looks long becuase it's next to an inevitably large cladogram. I opened an edit box to try out splitting the para, and it looked a fairly normal length on the edit box. I've split it into 3 at what I hope are sensible places.

Re the article's length, there are very few GA or better articles on phyla or sub-phyla, and most of those few woudl not survive reassessment. The problem is that phyla are big and arthropods are the biggest.

Removed sub-heading "Definition". -- Philcha (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see from the article talk page that you are under substantial pressure. Perhaps this is not a good time for a GA review, if the article is not stable. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a worry. Detailing all current locomotion methods as Shyamal suggests would increase the size of the article hugely and should be dealt with in the articles on the relevant sub-groups 2 or more levels down (e.g. some crabs move sideways; some waterflies move by spitting on the water, which increases surface tension immediately in front of them; fleas jump; stone flies "sail" on the surface of water and this is thought by some to be how the evolution of insect wings started). Arthropods' leading position in the colonization of land is already summarised in "Fossil record". Martin thinks the coverage is good, and AFAIK Martin is the most knowledgeable invertebrate paleontology editor currently active on English WP. -- Philcha (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

I still feel the lead is way too long and does not meet WP:LEAD. It is larger than any other part of the article.
The lead now contains a massive paragraph that needs to be broken up for readability.
Article needs a copy edit throughout. I have done some and can try to do more. I do not think I can do the whole thing.

Is there any particlular type of problem that you think is particularly common or likely to cause difficulties for readers? Or do you know any willing WP:wikignomes? --Philcha (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still have not read the article completely. However, copy edit problems are usually a question of style, correct wording, removing repetitions etc. In other words, not necessary causing difficulties for readers but more an issue of quality. I do think the massive lead is a problem, as some of it is repeated almost word for word in the body of the article. The lead does not really "summaryize". Regarding the lead, see Provide an accessible overview. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many diagrams that dwarf the text. Are they all needed? Can they be reduced in size?

If you understand segmentation, grouping of segments into tagmata, transformation of appendages from biramous origins, head patterns and cuticle, then you understand arthropods - if a reader stopped after this but remembered these points, the article still would be a success. Arthropods are living assemblies of LEGO blocks (if a source said that, I'd quote it). "My" text book takes exactly the same approach, and is equally lavish with images on these points. I played with the image sizes before doing all the annotations, and reducing them doesn't work:

The max gain in the "tagmata" image would be 10%, not worth the loss of clarity.
The "biramous" limb images is already reduced (see first version at Opabinia).
The one that takes the space is the "head segments" one, and that is as small as it gets, otherwise the segment codes would be hard to read and the legend would have width problems - and it's the same size in "my" book.
The cuticle image has to be the size it is in order not to distort the relative sizes of the layers any further (strictly speaking the epicuticle and epidermis are too thick, but the pics in the sources make the same compromise, and I've used the same proportions).
I also played around with moving the cuticle image to the left, so that the image and the "cuticle section could float up left of the "head segments" image, and that looked horrible because the first few lines of text in the "cuticle" section were very narrow.
In section "Evolution" I could ditch the onychophoran pic and move the cladograms up. But then Budd's cladogram (monophyletic Panarthropods) would be alongside the text about obsolete ideas of polyphyly, etc. I think the cure would be worse than the disease.

To put the problem another way, the layout problem arises because this article's text is more concise than that of the books (Ruppert, Fox & Barnes; Gould). I don't think it would be desirable to pad out the text just to eliminate the gap. --Philcha (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I figured as much, looking at the layout options. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Arthropod cuticle 01.png and Image:Arthropod body struct 01.png - You use the book are reference. This is vague. Did you use book text to create the diagrams, or did you modify diagrams from the book, or what?

I drew them as entirely new images (not copied & pasted), based on very similar diagrams in the sources. However such diagrams are common in invertbrate zoo and paleo literature, so there's no copyright issue. The reason for the refs is that a couple months ago some would-be wiki-cops (grrRRR, check the top right of my user page) started giving a useful artist serious hassle about WP:V, and nearly made him retire from WP - as it was he took down a few images, incl one I'd used as Orthrozanclus. With the amount of work I put into those diagrams (I'm a lousy artist but OK at diagrams) I wasn't going to leave myself exposed to such harassment, especially once I've returned the textbook to the library. --Philcha (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I am not an expert on how to word image source explanations. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(suggestion) Image:Scorpionwithyoung.JPG This is a great image and I note that it is up for deletion on Wikipedia because it exists on the Commons. I would recommend you contest this. Once images are on the Commons they often disappear for one reason or another.

Thanks for the heads up! --Philcha (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How the heck can I stop the juggernaut? The "CSD" banner is no help, gives no useful links. --Philcha (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:31-Velvet Worm.JPG is from a book but the general release is not clear. Is there an Otres ticket or some proof of the author's release?

Good catch, I hadn't seen that image anywhere else. Replaced with Image:Onycophora.jpg, which appears to have no copyright issue. --Philcha (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the references, you mix {{citation}} with various cite xxx templates. The template format should be consistent and use one or the other format.

For chapter in compilations ("A in X, edited by B") {{citation}} is necessary because {{cite book}} doesn't recognise some params needed to handle compilations. What problems are caused by mixing "citation" with "cite xxxx"? There's been a lot of activity at Village Pump (technical) to harmonise the output of citation templates. --Philcha (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Citation templates and tools for answer. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me of that. Fixed - thank goodness for WikEd! It's a disgrace that the templates were ever allowed to get out of step. I'll stick with "citation" from now on. --Philcha (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All references need publishers.

All books have publishers. Other refs generally don't, in most articles. --Philcha (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 53 is screwed up

Fixed --19:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Captions - there should only be periods in caption that are complete sentences.

Fixed --19:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In the sentence "The earliest fossil crustaceans date from about 513 million years ago in the Cambrian", the 513 is a surprise external link to pix in Easter egg fashion. This needs fixing somehow. External links are not allowed in body of text, although I admit this is not a typical external link. Still, it is Easter eggish.

The {{ma}} template is standard in articles with paleontology content, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Ma what links to it. The problem is all to do with dates and geological periods: a few readers may have the order of the periods in their heads and know roughly what the major events / fossils of each period were, but may not actually know the dates; while others won't have a clue about the periods and the best starting point for them is dates. It's long been the consensus on paleo content that {{ma}} is the best way to meet the needs of both groups. The ext link is to toolserver, which WP uses a lot e.g. for edit counts, managing contents of the WP CD and other major versions, some good usability / readability tools, etc. --19:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the red link Direct development will have an article in the foreseeable future?

The way I understand it, red links are verboten in FA reviews but not GA reviews. I think leaving the red link will remind editors to think about whether an article or redirect (e.g. to an article that reviews reproductive strategies from the point of view of the egg) is a good idea. If Arthropod is ever considered for FA review I could possibly create such an article myself. --Philcha (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Just asking. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence has bothered me for quite some time: "Estimating the total number of living species is extremely difficult because it often depends on a series of assumptions to scale from counts at specific locations up to the whole world." I know what you mean. However "assumptions to scale" may not be understandable to many. Perhaps something like: "on a series of assumptions based on a range of counts from those of specific locations to attempts at worldwide counts" - or something along those lines.

How about "often depends on a series of assumptions in order to scale up from counts at specific locations to estimates for the whole world"? --Philcha (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much better. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"One arthropod sub-group, insects, is the most species-rich member of all ecological guilds (ways of making a living) in land and fresh-water..." - (ways of making a living) does not seem to fit here, when apparently you mean Ecological niche. Could you say: "..is the most species-rich member sharing an ecological niche" - or something similar? Ecological niche is a more common term and links to a fairly decent article.

Guild is more accurate. E.g. bacteria, fungi, various insects, ..., lions are members of the scavenger guild as they dispose of dead organic matter, but you wouldn't say "of the same niche". OTOH you could say lions and hyenas were in the same niche (large vertebrate predators / scavengers). And "guild" is the term used by one of the sources. --Philcha (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. My real objection is to "(ways of making a living)" as it just doesn't sound right stylistically - it may be correct information-wise, but the style makes it confusing. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_accessible encourages the use of plain-language explanations. Why do you think it's confusing? --Philcha (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a frog an arthropod? You use a frog as an example in the "Reproduction and development" section.

Edited to "as for example frogs also do". The point is that there are various modes of external fertilisation that need to be excluded, e.g. broadcast fertilisation as used by sessile animals, where they all ejaculate into the water and hope a few sperm and eggs meet up before micro-predators wolf the lot. --Philcha (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an extremely interesting article and well-written for the most part. The article is very worthy. It just needs some issues addressed. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you like it. I got really lucky with a text book from a local library, as the book focuses on how the various animals work as "living machines" (its sub-title is "A functional and evolutionary approach"). --Philcha (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Matisse. I'm not sure this copyedit was a success: "for example" was meant to explain "In some segments of all known arthropods the appendages are modified", not the previous sentence.

I'll start looking at your comments now. --Philcha (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right about my edit. I changed it because it sounded like it was happening today, right before our very eyes, rather than having happened primarily in the past. I fully admit I am not any kind of authority on this subject! —Mattisse (Talk) 19:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what was buggin you. I've edited to "In some segments of all known arthropods the appendages have been modified, for example to form gills, mouth-parts, ..." --Philcha (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - There is a sentence: "Higher up the "family tree", the Annelida have traditionally been considered the closest relatives of the Panarthropoda." This follows a long discussion that ends in 2006, apparently concerning lower down in the "family tree". Then you continue with, "In the 1990s, molecular phylogenetics analyses that compared sequences..." Do you think subheading could separate these different "family tree" views and clarify for the reader what is being discussed, since it is out of time sequence? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the publication dates of articles, it's about a wider view, going from the closest relatives of arthropods to the whole wider protostome lineage - like looking at a map of a continent rather than a country.

Could change it to "Looking at more distant evolutionary relatives of arthropods, ..." What do you think? --Philcha (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. It is just a little confusing to the reader and I was wondering if subheading would help.

Also, I know the image issue is difficult, but per MoS - Images, it is best not to squeeze text between images. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at the lead tomorrow - it's now nearly 11pm in UK. --Philcha (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I checked with another editor whom I respect. In his opinion, the lead in this article was a case for WP:IAR. I am certainly willing to do this. If you are satisfied with the changes we have made to the article, I will pass it as GA. It is really a very good article! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):Very well written b (MoS): No important MoS ommissions
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Very well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): The sources are reliable
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Yes b (focused): Remains focused
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: Yes
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: Yes
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]