Talk:Syssomonas

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Syssomonas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 21:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright, lets get this knocked out. Please indicate with a comment, strikethrough, or some other means to indicate when an issue has been resolved.

---

Images:

• File:Desmarella moniliformis.jpg, link isn't to the image in question
• Cladogram doesn't need captions for images

Copyright

• Earwig is clean
• Spot-checks of what I can access appear to be clear.

Sourcing

• No concerns about reliability
• One URL linked is still active.

Misc

• No concerns about stability, nominator is also primary author
• Specify in the Taxobox that the domain in Eukaryote

Prose

• Lead should be expanded. A three sentence lead is a rather hard sell. See MOS:LEAD

-More detail about the life cycle and evolution in particular

• WP:LEADCITE, unless the information added in the lead isn't mentioned later or is controversial, citations in the lead aren't necessary.

-This isn't a hard and fast rule per se, but is best practice. If you wanna argue a case against this, I'm willing to listen.

• and a large variety of life forms during their highly complex life cycle

-While grammatically accurate, sentence could be turned into a compound sentence. Consider "and can present with a large..."

-"Large variety" is also a subjective term.

• Define amoeboflagellate, it isn't directly defined, only implicitly.
• You say there's a life cycle but never establish the chronological steps in this life cycle. I assume the uniflagellum stage is the first but it's never explicitly stated.
• 'convolve' define or simplify
• 'flagellates' change to 'uniflagellar swimming stage' Keep the terms consistent
• ' attracts, again, likely by chemical signaling,'

-Why is this qualified with an 'again', this is the first mention

• 'extrusive' simplify
• Specify which phylogeny is being represented in the clagogram.

---

Placing page on hold, overall really well done, just needs some minor clean up. I made a few edits of my own, please review when you can. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 21:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I reviewed your edits, and they were very helpful. Regarding the GA review:

• Taxobox: I requested the change to be made in the Template:Taxonomy/Amorphea talk page. The change would display the domain permanently on all pages, thus specifying it here. This is better in my opinion than displaying it only here with |display_parents=7, because that would also display two other intermediate clades, making the taxobox a bit too long.
• Prose
  • I erased the 'again' because it was a mistake.
  • I erased the references from the lead.
  • I simplified the 'large variety of life forms' sentence and avoided the subjective terms.
  • I defined amoeboflagellate in the first mention of the word. One of these days I might end up creating an article for this term, given how frequent I've been using it.
  • Regarding the life cycle, there is no chronological order. All the literature seems to establish that these different stages aren't steps, but rather different forms and behaviors that the organism chooses depending on the physiological or environmental state (such as being hungry, being surrounded by a specific medium, being among other cells...). That is why no order is mentioned. There is no 'first' or 'last' stage.
  • I substituted 'convolve' with 'coil'. To be honest, I didn't even question the use of 'convolve' in the original source material, although I didn't know the word at the time, as a non-native speaker.
  • I substituted 'uniflagellar' with 'flagellate'. 'Uniflagellar' is the term used by the source material and I didn't think it would be confusing, that's why I didn't change it at first. I changed another sentence to further explicitly point out that there is only one flagellum.
  • I added a description of the cladogram.
  • I substituted 'extrusive' with 'extruding' because that's the intended meaning.
  • I expanded more on the lead but I'm not sure what else I could add without taking up too much space.

Let me know if I missed anything or if something could be improved further. I will try to respond as soon as possible. Thanks for reviewing. —Snoteleks 🦠 13:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Snoteleks, I removed the references to 'life cycle'. While I understand what you're after, the term Life cycle implies a chronology and development. If these forms are interchangeable then it technically doesn't qualify.

The only issue remaining is the 'File:Desmarella moniliformis.jpg' image, the link provided goes to a dieting blog. I just need to be able to confirm that this is CC 3.0. Choanoflagellate has plenty of other images if you need to replace it. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 18:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Etriusus It's not a personal choice, 'life cycle' according to the source material is the correct term here. I have to oppose its removal because I don't see the incoherency. Isn't it enough that there is a reproductive stage and non-reproductive stages, hence the "development" aspect? The actions of feeding and reproducing imply chronology, since they can't exactly be reversed... I just don't feel comfortable removing such a big slice of the terminology.

I replaced the choanoflagellate image. Let me know if there's any other issues. —Snoteleks 🦠 19:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Snoteleks Since it's in the sourcing, then I am more agreeable to keeping it in. I've restored the references to life cycle. Image looks good, so too do it's rights. While I'm not exactly thrilled about the lead length, cross referencing this with prior GAs on protists shows that this is about the usual. If you want to take this to WP:FA, you may need to expand it further.

At this point, I don't have any other concerns. Passing GA, congrats!!!! 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 19:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above 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.