Wikipedia:Peer review/Velvet worm/archive1

Velvet worm

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've just finished translating this article from the German 'featured' article - it's taken me nearly 10 months (lots of long gaps between short spikes in activity) - and I definitely think it needs looking over by some fresh sets of eyes. At the moment the article is very technical and could probably do with some more plain-English, particularly in the introduction. In the medium to long term, I'd like to try for FAC with this so pretty much any constructive feedback would be appreciated. Cheers, --YFB ¿ 20:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

From delldot

Nicely done. This article is very cool! Wikipedia is lucky to have someone like you who's able to do translations and willing to put so much work in. Some thoughts:

• I think the lead should be longer, it looks like there's a lot in the article not covered in the lead.
• Wouldn't Onychophora be italicized?
• More images would make the article prettier and break up some of that long text. I especially want to see some of these orange, red, green, blue, gold or white and occasionally patterned with other colours worms! I also want to see a closeup of these claws, even a diagram would work.
• Segmentation is a dab link. I recommend checking the article for others.
• No need to link common words like cylinder (also a dab, btw) unless they're related to the subject of the article.
• What does "unstructured body appendages" mean?
• You should use a non breaking space between numbers and units like 2 cm. Also, aren't you supposed to use a conversion template like {{Convert}} for measurements like cm?
• ..."with the average being about 5 cm..." According to this, "Using 'with' as an additive link leads to wordy and awkward prose." He recommends using a semicolon instead.
• What is a growth zone?
• "...exhibit no joints" you mean "have no joints"?
• I like the phylogeny chart with the {{clade}} template, can that be done for the other ones that are made by putting a space at the beginning of the line? Or maybe an image? I think it would look better.
• It looks like you've fixed the recapitulation theory problem that was brought up on the talk page, right?
• The article needs more references. At the very least, after every statistic such as a measurement. The article is too long not to have inline references, a list of references at the end is not enough. See Wikipedia:Footnotes for guidance on this, or ask me for help.

Gotta go for now, more to follow. delldot on a public computer talk 01:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

More

• "...resemble the claws of the feet, with which they are probably homologous." Can you explain homology in layperson's terms?
• "They move backward and forward in a longitudinal direction..." I'm not sure what a longitudinal direction means here. Do they move side to side?
• Another possibility for an image would be a diagram of the slime glands.
• "...epidermis cells forming an internal skin..." Shouldn't this be "epidermal cells"?
• "The cuticula is about a micrometer thick and covered with fine villi." I assume this is why it's called the velvet worm. You might want to mention this, if you can find a source for it.
• "...enables the velvet worm to squeeze itself into the narrowest crevices." Maybe I'm just being a smartass here, but I'm sure there are crevices narrow enough that the worms could not get in. How about "very narrow"?
• Respiration - another dab link.
• "...the cuticula is not able to prevent water loss by respiration and as a result velvet worms can only live in microclimates with high humidity..." commas between independent clauses.
• Wouldn't "villi-like" be "villus-like"?
• "Moulting of the skin (ecdysis) takes place regularly, sometimes every 14 days, induced by the hormone ecdyson." I would think this sentence should go in the next paragraph, the one about moulting.
• Why not split the Skin and musculature section into two sections: Skin, and Musculature?
• For the first use of words that are likely to be unfamiliar to the lay reader, like nephridia, you should have a quick explanation of what they are (which can frequently be nabbed from the lead section of the article). Though if it would disrupt the writing, linking to the word can be enough.
• "...filled with a blood-like liquid, in which all the organs are embedded; in this way they can be easily supplied with nutrients circulating in the blood." So do they have blood, or a blood-like liquid? Or both?
• I noticed a couple places where you could reduce redundancy (which would be nice, since the article is longish). For example "have an influence on" -> "influence". Check out User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy for more ideas.
• "the subsequent 'throat'" - I don't think subsequent is the right word here.
• "This so-called 'uricotelic' elimination mode represents an adjustment to life on land and the associated necessity of dealing economically with water." When you're talking about evolution, I would recommend making that explicit.

More to follow.

As I said before, the article is very cool. It makes for a fascinating read, which is really saying something for an article about a type of worm! It doesn't have any of the problems with awkward or bulky wording I'd expect from a translated article. The #1 problem is the lack of inline citations, probably a deal breaker even for GA, unfortunately. But I'd go so far as to call the writing brilliant, and I doubt you'll have much problem after you've fixed the referencing thing. delldot on a public computer talk 01:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

More

• "In females, the two ovaries are joined in the middle and to the horizontal diaphragm." How about "joined to each other in the middle and to..."
• "stored temporarily or for longer periods" doesn't really make sense since temporary doesn't necessarily mean a short time. Can you find a source for more precicely how long it can be stored?
• "...it is not surprising that velvet worms are usually most active at night and during rainy weather." The article shouldn't offer commentary such as "it is not surprising that", or other stuff like "curious", "interestingly", or "it should be noted" (not that the article has the latter two). These phrases don't serve much of a purpose anyway and just make the writing bulkier.
• Since the Distribution and habitat is kind of a more exciting section than the anatomy sections, you might want to move it up above them in the article. This would also help combine the anatomy and Locomotion sections, which are more closely related. However, you should follow recommendations of the MOSs for the relevant WikiProjects if they have guidelines for sections.
• I don't think arthropods should be capitalized.
• You might consider moving the Reproduction and lifecycle section to below the anatomy section, which ends with reproductive organs, for better flow. Some of the material in the former section may actually belong in the Reproductive organs section, and some is repeated in both.
• "For defence, some species roll themselves reflexively into a spiral, while they can also fight off smaller opponents by ejecting slime." Also from Epbr123: "'While' should only be used when emphasising that two events occur at the same time, or when emphasising contrast. It shouldn't be used as an additive link."
• "Various mites (Acari) are known as ectoparasites, which infest the skin of the velvet worm. Skin injuries are usually accompanied by bacterial infections, which are almost always fatal." I guess the reader can infer that the mites cause the injuries, but you might want to make this explicit if you can find a source for it.
• "varies quite strongly" - maybe "varies widely"? I don't know if variation can have strength.

Gotta go again (sorry, I'm at work). delldot on a public computer talk 02:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

More

• "Maternal care is unknown" - maybe flesh out this sentence to make its meaning more clear.
• When you have a choice between formal and common wording, go for common: "the majority of" -> "most".
• "This probably represents the velvet worm's original mode of reproduction, i.e. both oviviparous and viviparous " Avoid starting sentences with this, since it's not always clear what this refers to. Also, I think you're supposed to avoid latin abbreviations like i.e. and e.g.
• Per WP:DATE, spell out intergers from 0 to 10, except in the circumstances listed at that page.
• You might want to split reproduction and lifestyle into a Reproduction and a Lifecycle section. That way, Lifecycle could go more toward the top, above anatomy, which is more dry. I think the fact that they can live to be six years old (?!) is interesting and might go better at the top (or you could include a sentence or two from this section in the lead).
• I think the lead could do a better job of summarizing the article, and it would help with the technicalness that you pointed out. For example, reading along in the anatomy sections, you're like, "What? They have hearts?" You can help the reader by offerring summaries ahead of time, and that way casual readers can skip the more in-depth stuff. You could also rename the Structure section to Structure and anatomy and give a summary of the anatomy at the beginning of that section.
• Sections I think the lead should cover more: Anatomy, Lifecycle, Conservation status. Really the whole article should be summarized in the lead. Most people would expect a longer lead for an article of this size.
• In the lead, "they bear live young." You should change this to "some species bear live young", since not all do.

gtg. delldot on a public computer talk 03:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

More

• Scratch what I said about separating Reproduction and lifecycle, there's not really enough lifecycle for its own section.
• Amongst is another word that should be replaced by a less formal one: among.
• If you'd be able to reorganize the article so that Phylogeny could come right after the Structure section, the article would probably flow better, since Phylogeny starts off by talking about structure and anatomy.
• "...the Panarthropoda - i.e. the three groups collectively cover all descendants..." I think this requires an em dash (—). If you haven't already, I recommend looking over User:Epbr123#Style and prose checklist, I think that's in there.
• "Simply-constructed organs" doesn't need a hyphen; simply is an adverb, so there's not the threat of the reader mistaking it as modifying the noun and changing the meaning (e.g. with (fast moving van and fast-moving van) Usually, words ending in -ly don't require hyphens in this situation (hyphen does a pretty good job of explaining this). There are a few other cases of unnecessary hyphens, some of which I took out.
• There are some 'dubious' tags under the Lobopoda section, these should be fixed quickly. Here's where inline referencing is vital.
• "...nature experimented with the most diverse and bizarre body designs..." I'm torn. It makes the writing more interesting, but it's not really accurate to personify 'nature' this way.
• "...animals such as, for example, sponges..." I wouldn't think you need both "such as" and "for example". Does one add meaning that the other doesn't cover?
• "Stephen Jay Gould sees this as a symptom..." He's dead, so past tense.
• "...which also includes the various Lobopoda..." I think "also includes" is a little redundant.
• " From cladistic analysis, a trend can then be ascertained towards stronger external segmentation and towards a ..." What? A part missing from the translation maybe?
• Also fix the clarify tag in that section.
• I would cut down the Phylogeny section a bit if I were you, it's a little long and involved. (Hint: You can do this by removing info you can't find references for.)
• What are the little †'s in the Classification section about? Is that explained somewhere?
• I also think the Taxonomy section could stand to be moved up, as it gives explanation for something in the infobox that's not clear throughout the article until you get to that section. (I admit, if you took all my moving sections up advice, everything would be at the top! Except the structure and Phylogeny sections.)
• There are a couple more cases throughout the text where a hyphen is used when an em dash is needed.
• References: Chapter titles aren't italicized; they're in quotation marks.
• Can you find any literature reviews from journal articles? The references are all books, journal articles are really good sources (but don't use original studies, those are primary sources).
• Does the "This article was initially translated from" thing really go under references? Might want to consult the MOS about this.

Overall, like I said, really awesome work. My main points are that the lead should cover more of the article, the organization kind of jumps around and similar topics could stand to be grouped together more, and inline references are needed. If you ignore every single point in this review but one, add inline references. Many of them. That's really the only thing stopping this article from being a GA right now, IMO. delldot on a public computer talk 05:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)