Talk:Ochrophyte/GA1
Latest comment: 8 months ago by Snoteleks in topic GA Review
Note I put this article in the protists section of the Good Article listing - if it should be elsewhere, please feel free to put it where it belongs. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
- Spotchecks:
- "A new class of algae, Olisthodiscophyceae, was described in 2021 and recovered as part of the SII lineage," is sourced to this source which supports the information
- "The phylum to which ochrophytes belong in his classification system is Gyrista, a clade that also contains some heterotrophic heterokonts, namely the Pseudofungi and the Bigyromonada." is sourced to this source which supports the information
- "As of 2024, it is estimated that ochrophytes amount to 23,314 described species, with 490 species of uncertain position." is sourced to this source which supports the information
- General:
- There's a LOT of duplicated links here - suggest using the "highlight duplicate links" script to identify them. Examples include "cells" which is linked in the first pargraph of Description as well as in the next paragraph of the article (which is the Flagella section) and then in the next paragraph (the first paragraph of Chloroplasts section) or "photosynthetic" which is linked in the first sentence of Chloroplasts and the second sentence of the same section.
Implemented didn't know that script existed, it is very useful! - Also with links - you're linking some things that are probably not needed to be linked - "freshwater" "soils" "plants". See MOS:OVERLINK Implemented deleted those links.
- There's a LOT of duplicated links here - suggest using the "highlight duplicate links" script to identify them. Examples include "cells" which is linked in the first pargraph of Description as well as in the next paragraph of the article (which is the Flagella section) and then in the next paragraph (the first paragraph of Chloroplasts section) or "photosynthetic" which is linked in the first sentence of Chloroplasts and the second sentence of the same section.
- Lead:
- While this is mostly understandable to the layperson, I'd suggest a few quick explanations of the linked words so that you don't lose the reader to other articles. My suggestion would be "eukaryotes", "plastids", "thylakoids", and "chlorphylls". Implemented added a bit of context for those words.
- We say in the description section that they are considered algae - this should probably be in the lead Implemented mentioned algae in lead.
- While this is mostly understandable to the layperson, I'd suggest a few quick explanations of the linked words so that you don't lose the reader to other articles. My suggestion would be "eukaryotes", "plastids", "thylakoids", and "chlorphylls".
- Chloroplasts:
- "They have a distinct plastid" it is unclear what "they" is here, as the last thing we've discussed was leucoplasts - are we still discussing leucoplasts or are we back discussing ochrophytes? Implemented cleared up.
- "They have a distinct plastid" it is unclear what "they" is here, as the last thing we've discussed was leucoplasts - are we still discussing leucoplasts or are we back discussing ochrophytes?
- Ecology:
- Suggest using the plain "seawater" rather than "marine water" Implemented changed to seawater.
- Suggest using the plain "seawater" rather than "marine water"
- Freshwater:
- "to avoid being pulled by the downward water current" suggest rewording to "to avoid being disturbed by water currents"
Partially implemented the new sentence has the word "displaced" rather than "disturbed".
- "to avoid being pulled by the downward water current" suggest rewording to "to avoid being disturbed by water currents"
- Taxonomic history:
- "accordance to ICN recommendations" we should spell out what ICN means on first mention Implemented spelt out.
- "The origin of this name is the class Heterokontæ, introduced by Luther in 1899 to include" link and full name for Luther? Implemented full name is Alexander Ferdinand Luther, and I found a link to the Finnish Wikipedia.
- "Robert Andersen validly published Heterokontophyta as phylum in 2023" did you mean "Robert Andersen validly published Heterokontophyta as a phylum in 2023"? Implemented yes I did.
- "accordance to ICN recommendations" we should spell out what ICN means on first mention
- I did a light copyedit, please check that I didn't break anything.
Checked your copyedit was welcome, no breaks caused.
- 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) 14:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you @Ealdgyth for the review. Please let me know if there is any additional issues that you notice. —Snoteleks (Talk) 18:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Changes look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! —Snoteleks (Talk) 15:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Changes look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you @Ealdgyth for the review. Please let me know if there is any additional issues that you notice. —Snoteleks (Talk) 18:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)