Talk:Chitinozoan

Comment

I've just gave a definition to start something. There's not a lot of information about (micro-)fossils in this encyclopedia. Feel free to edit and correct (language) mistakes!

The previous unsigned comment was left on 19:37, 27 September 2004 by Georingo

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

A very nice article, with just some small fixes

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Needs a bit of expansion in the lead as well as a few spots where the prose was a bit dense.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   a few spots where citations are needed.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• I'd like to see the lead a little bit bigger. Right now it feels a bit skimpy for the density and size of the article. Consider putting in when they were discovered, something about Eisenack, a bit about their ecology, etc.

Y Done

• Why are they useful biostratigraphic markers? (from the lead).

Not sure I've understood this comment; I've expanded the lede in this respect, a full explanation is in the "Stratigraphic application" section.

• For the non-biologist/paleontologist ... when exactly is the Ordovician? Pre dionosaur or after? (Hey, I study medieval history, you'd be as at sea if I just linked Anglo-Danish) An era would be nice.

I hope I've addressed this - I'm somewhat fluent with the periods these days, so always find it difficult to gauge what level a casual reader can interpret! Smith609 Talk

• Try to avoid using the same first word in successive sentences. For example, Appearance section, first paragraph, the second and third sentence both start with "They..." which makes reading repetitive.

Y Done

• Appearance section, first paragraph, fourth sentence (Starting with "The range and complexity...") is very long and complex. Consider breaking it up into two sentences?

Y Done

• Same section and paragraph, last sentence. Saying "This may be a genuine phenomenon..." implies that layers in the walls of the fossils might NOT actually occur. I think what you mean is "This layered structure may be a result of the preservational process or it may have been part of the live structure of the organisms."? Does that get at what was meant?

Y Done

• Please give a QUICK explanation of what "Test (biology)" means. Readers shouldn't have to click through to see what a phrase means, especially one that is a different usage of a word they are familiar with.

Y Done

• Probably the historian in me, but when exactly was Eisenack's work first published classifying these organisms?

Y Done - work in 1930, pub 1931 - now in text.

• Classification section, the sentence starting "They have, however, since been revised as scientic advances..." is very complex. Consider rewording, perhaps to "Since Esinack's original classification advances in science have made construction of a "natural order" more feasible. This order is based on appearance of distinctive traits in disparate groups and reflects relatedness rather than just similarity of traits."

Y Done

• Young graptolites. Is there a "pre-sicula" stage wikilink?

Y Done - link to morphology section of "Graptolite", which is the closest we can do.

• Same section, sixth sentence, do you mean preparation techniques for examining the fossils?

Y Done - clarified

• Same section last sentence, I suggest replacing "Further doubt must creep in ..." with "Further doubt creeps in when..." which strikes me as less POV

Y Done

• Eggs section, last sentence of the second paragraph, it's opinion and needs a citation.

Y Done

• Ecology section, first sentence, I suggest changing "...and several lines of argument must be invoked to approach an answer." with "...several arguments have been advanced to find an answer." which seems less POV and didactic to me.

Y Done

• Perhaps wikilink "Infaunal, benthic and pelagic"?

None of these redirect links has a relevant landing page - I've linked to their dictionary definitions at wiktionary, although definitions are provided in the article already so I'm not sure how helpful that is. Smith609 Talk

That works, although you could always add them to you "pages to do" list (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Quick explanation of rayleigh number in the sentence it's in?

Y Done - Hope it's comprehensible

• Ecology section, fourth paragraph, last sentence is opinion and needs a citation.

Y Done

• Same section, fifth paragraph, "Amazingly, ..." remove amazingly as it's not NPOV, it's a peacock term.

Y Done

• Same section, sixth sentence, perhaps change "deepish" "deeper"?

Y Done

• External links usually go after the References.

I feel they're better before, because casual readers are likely to find them useful and may miss them if they have to scan past references, which readers usually access via the hyperlinks. Smith609 Talk

At GA, it's certainly a style choice, and one I won't hold the article back for. Just note that if you plan to take it to FAC, you'll probably be asked to move it again. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Consider moving a few more images over to the left hand of the page to avoid the appearance of pictures marching down the right hand side of the page.

This is a stylistic choice - I always think that having images on opposite sides makes an article look messy and harder to read, so I prefer them consistently on the right. I guess it's a matter of taste... Smith609 Talk

Same as above about GA and FAC. I believe the MOS says to stagger them, so at FAC they generally like to see them staggered. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update - either were acceptable last time I looked, I hadn't noticed the amendment.

A very nice article, and does a pretty decent job of explaining things to a non-specialist. I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your helpful review! I've acted upon most of your comments, and noted above my reasons for leaving a couple of parts as they are. I've probably not done a perfect job so feel free to point out anything else that could be tweaked! Thanks, Smith609 Talk 11:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks great to me, passing it now. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thanks again for taking the time to review this article! Smith609 Talk 21:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)