Talk:Stramenopile/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 15:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Good morning Chiswick Chap, I'll take this review and do my best to make it expedient. I will hopefully have placed all relevant comments within the next few days, but I hope you'll forgive me if I'm more thorough than usual since this is my first full review in a while. Fritzmann (message me) 15:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments

1. Well-written
   1. Link "flagella" in the first paragraph, perhaps
      1. Done.
   2. I may be misunderstanding the taxonomy (I am by no means an expert), but in the first sentence it says that the clade is distinguished by tripartite hairs. However, in the second paragraph of the lede it states that many Stramenopiles like Diatoms do not have tripartite hairs. Is this normal, or should it be explained briefly in the introduction? From my reading, this seems to be what the second sentence is alluding to - perhaps the examples could be merged into that sentence to make it apparent that this is the same phenomenon?
      1. Well, plants are distinctively photosynthetic, but of course we can find some species that aren't, having list that ancestral trait..... I've added an explanation.
   3. A brief introduction of the Heterokont problem in the lead might be welcome, maybe even something like that first sentence of the history section
      1. Added.
   4. "The name "stramenopile" has been discussed by J. C. David." should it not be discussed in this article?
      1. We have the key points of the names and history here.
   5. "many not been previously considered as 'heterokonts'," unsure of the sentence structure here but the grammar doesn't sound quite right
      1. Good catch, edited.
   6. I think repeating some or all of the taxon links in the second paragraph of the heterokont section may be helpful to the reader even though they were already linked once in the lead
      1. Added several.
   7. Link "axoneme"
      1. Done.
   8. "..distinctive 9 peripheral couplets and two central microtubules changes into the nine triplet structure of the basal body" may be somewhat difficult for a layman to understand
      1. Reworded.
   9. Are there other clades that possess stramenochromes/ chromoplasts and use them in this same way? Also "chromoplasts" could stand to be linked as well
      1. No. Linked.
   10. "opalines and proteromonads live in the intestines of cold-blooded vertebrates and have been called parasites." Is there doubt as to whether they are actually parasites? Who is calling them parasitic?
       1. Edited. Many gut organisms do mo harm, indeed many are helpful.
2. Verifiable
   1. Reference list well-formatted, all refs are inline
      1. Noted.
   2. Random checks of refs 27 and 15 did not yield any glaring mistakes
      1. Noted.
   3. However, was difficult to verify because of the wide page ranges of some pretty lengthy articles. Just wondering if it would be appropriate to have the page range in the reference direct one to specifically to the pages where the information was retrieved
      1. Standard practice is to cite whole articles.
3. Broad
   1. Only thing I was wondering is whether the synonyms listed in the taxobox could be expounded upon briefly in the history section - particularly the ones very similar in spelling to stramenopile. Were these just orthographical errors or was there actual disagreement on how the clade should be spelled?
      1. I'd say the minor variations in spelling are insignificant, didn'tcome across any evidence to the contrary.
4. Neutral
   1. The author does not appear to have any particular agenda dealing with a clade of peculiar little eukaryotes
      1. Indeed not.
5. Stable
   1. No edit warring in recent article history, article is stable
      1. Noted.
6. Illustrated
   1. Is File:Ochromonas.jpg (in the infobox) an illustration based on a particular description or previous image? It seems like a colored-in version of a previous file, but that original uploader didn't say what their reference was for drawing the diagram
      1. I suspect they just drew the little beastie under their microscope. Many biology drawings are of this type.
   2. The Cafeteria roenbergensis images look great
      1. Thank you!
   3. Perhaps in the caption of the giant kelp image it could be mentioned that it is representative of the multicellular clades of the Stramenophiles - it took me a minute to puzzle out the relevance of the image
      1. Added a gloss to the caption.
   4. I'm going to assume all the images in the cladogram are properly licensed instead of checking all of them
      1. Noted. Most are the lead images for their taxa.
   5. Similar input for the Paraphysomonas butcheri image as for the giant kelp - the caption is good information but I personally feel like having it explain what feature of the taxon the pictured species represents would be more digestible by a reader. I hope I'm making that clear enough, let me know if it requires more clarification.
      1. The first sentence of the caption explains this.

Well I wasn't expecting to do the whole thing in one sitting but here we are. After you've addressed my nitpicks I'll run back through the article one more time and then it should be good! Thanks for yet another very nice looking article. Fritzmann (message me) 16:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for the helpful review. I'm away from my desk so may be a bit slow but I'll be as prompt as possible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Well I didn't expect to get through this at a sitting either, but here we are. Thanks again for the review.

Y With Snoteleks not having any pressing concerns and all of my comments addressed, GA pass! I'm glad this was uncontroversial, the article is certainly of high enough quality for GA. @Chiswick Chap: if you have any future projects that become neglected at GAN please don't hesitate to drop me a ping, I'm always happy to perform a review. Fritzmann (message me) 16:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)