Talk:Black coral/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

• I don't think you need "species that are not necessarily threatened with extinction, but may become so unless trade in specimens of such species is subject to strict regulation in order to avoid utilization incompatible with the survival of the species in the wild"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• "These uncommon corals" contradicts "existing at nearly every location and depth"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• "in the taxon Ceriantipatharia" it'd be more helpful if you'd specify what level Ceriantipatharia is (is it a subclass? a clade?)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• "historically been used by pacific peoples" did you mean Pacific Islanders?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Why do you use "illegal harvesting" instead of "poaching"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• "they have few morphological characteristics" did you mean "distinctive/distinguishing characteristics"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• "were placed in the Antipathes family" you meant Antipathidae   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Instead of saying "In 2015, the current taxonomic system was implemented," you could just say something along the lines of "In 2015, [whatever the new system is]"
• I think the Families section should be a subsection of the Classification & taxonomy section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• "is the Greek word" did you mean the modern Greek language or Ancient Greek?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• What does "ēkaha kū moana" translate to?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• You could definitely pull in a lot more academic sources. Just searching on google scholar, there's this, this, this, this, and tons more   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Alright, that's most of the easy stuff done. I'll get someone to help with the language-related questions, and I'll work on adding in more reputable sources. As for the comment about the "2015" sentence, I agree, but I'm not sure how to smoothly implement that. I'll work on it. Thank you for doing this. Aven13 11:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Black coral is a pretty broad topic so I'd expect it to be pretty sizable for GA   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Language questions done, one source added. More to come. Aven13 01:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that's all of the initial improvements done. I can keep working on adding more sources, but in the meantime, any comments you have about the new sections would be greatly appreciated.Aven13 19:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• This looks interesting, and this, this, I don't know if this can be used to add text but it can be used to support text already here, this, this, this, this, this, maybe this, this, this, and I could probably keep going. Like I said, you picked a pretty broad topic, so it's gonna require a fair amount of reading   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Did you incorporate these yet?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• Reading the classification section, it could definitely be more concise. You keep saying "These seven families" but we know there're seven, so leave it at "The families". Instead of "Black corals are a group of 280 species of corals. Those 280 species are divided into seven known families, which are further divided into 44 known genera," you could drastically shorten this to "Black corals are divided into 7 families, 44 genera, and 280 species". "These seven families are separated both by their bathypelagic distribution and by physical characteristics" this is an obvious statement because there's really nothing else (except DNA) that would be used to distinguish families. The same goes for the succeeding sentences. You should instead say what makes them similar   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Like this? (sorry if it's wrong.) Aven13 17:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

"There are 7 families, 44 genera, and 280 distinct species of black coral.[5] The seven distinct families of antipatharians are..." you already said there're 7 families, so you don't need to say in the next sentence "The seven distinct families", and you should directly say black corals are classified in the order Antipatharia. When I said what makes them the same, I didn't mean remove "not", I meant what specifically distinguishes Antipatharia from any other order of coral? You don't need "Species in the same genus and family have similar skeletal growth patterns, polyp color and size, and spines. Genetic data has also been used in recent years to distinguish between species" because that's far too vague and really is just a basic definition of family and species. "All black coral families have a chitin skeleton, small or medium-sized polyps, and small spines along the skeleton" is good because it quickly gives specific similarities   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that's done. I can add more differences if needed, but those are the main two.Aven13 12:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

It's good now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• There's still some condensing needing to be done, like "...the coral's polyps allowing it to feed mostly on meiofauna.[2][8] It does so by stinging meiofauna such a zooplankton..." why is meiofauna explained in the next sentence? Also, what exactly is meiofauna? If you wikilink a complex term, you should still briefly explain it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• "The skeleton of black coral is hard and inert, due to its composition" Why is this in the Predators section? What is its composition?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• In the Life cycle and reproduction section, why is there a ref in front of "However"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• What do these corals eat? Typically, diet and predators are subheadings under an Ecology section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• Last sentence of Habitat is missing a ref   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• "There are, however, invertebrate predators of black coral" You say this as if it's shocking breaking news   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• The Habitat, Anatomy, and Life cycle sections are devoid of pictures, yet you have a gallery on the bottom   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

All fixed. (I hope). Aven13 17:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Why were black corals named for the word "against disease"? Were they used as medicine? Briefly mention Milne-Edwards and Haime in text, giving their full names, occupations, and their reasoning for creating Antipatharia and perhaps what specimens they were looking at   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• In Genera make sure to cite WoRMS, and use {{cite WoRMS}}   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• When giving a measurement (such as depth), use {{cvt}} so it gives it in metric and imperial units   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• I think Anatomy should be its own section, and Habitat, Diet, and Predation grouped under Ecology   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• "like many other colonial organisms" I thought black corals typically aren't colonial   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• "Most black corals require a hard surface to attach to" as opposed to nektonic or attaching to sand or what?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Do we know why black corals prefer low-light areas? The Anatomy section suggests it has nothing to do with light   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• You use consistently use "black coral" over "antipatharians"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• "A layer of "bark" will have form around" first grammar, second, why are we using this tense?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Briefly explain what a polyp is on first mention   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

All easy suggestions done. I wasn't sure when to use Antipatharia vs. Black Coral, so I just used my own judgement. Aven13 18:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

It's best just to stick with "Black coral"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• What are the skeletons made out of?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

"Black corals instead get their name from their black skeletons, which are comprised primarily of protein and chitin.[12]" I have in the second section of anatomy. Is there somewhere else I could put it? Aven13 23:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Conclusion

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   You're close, still a lot of unnecessarily wordy statements (like "Compared to what we know about asexual reproduction, we know little about sexual reproduction in these corals. What we do know is that sexual reproduction occurs after the coral colony is established.")

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Some unreferenced paragraphs

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Still a lot of sources out there that need to be included

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Very wordy

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Captions need some work (like "Leiopathes sp., a leiopathid" is not helpful)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Honestly, I think this article could heavily be expanded with tons of more sources. I don't think it'll be ready and complete in good time, so I will be failing it for now. I hope to see you back here again   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)