stringtranslate.com

Talk:Parvilucifera

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Parvilucifera/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Snoteleks (talk · contribs) 13:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 17:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Snoteleks, always a pleasure to work on one of your articles; thanks for your continued work on protist coverage. I know that with this kind of taxa information is often limited, so just let me know if a question raised in the review can't be answered.

Checked You're right. I explained it very briefly, let me know if it's enough.
Checked Honestly there isn't much to say, I mention it more in-depth within the Perkinsea article. Basically, molecular phylogenetics demonstrate that Perkinsozoa are the closest relatives of dinoflagellates, even though ecologically they resemble Apicomplexa, so much so that the author who first described Perkinsea proposed them as the most basal Apicomplexa. I did add "according to molecular phylogenetics" for slightly more context.
Checked They actually are algae! At least half of them are photosynthetic, and are treated as an algal phylum by phycologists (see Guiry, 2024 or AlgaeBase). Even the Harmful algal bloom article mentions dinoflagellate blooms.
I learned something new today! Thank you for that
Checked Frankly, this sentence is what little remains from old edits earlier than my contribution, and I was really unsure of where it even comes from, because it was unsourced, and even after reading sources I never found that particular message. I decided to omit it entirely, for now.
Checked It's a term that I usually see to refer to individuals in a colonial animal, but for some reason the authors use it to describe the etymology of Parvilucifera, essentially as a synonym for organisms. I modified it for better understanding.
Checked Yes, it does. It's a common occurrence that the roots of the names don't exactly match the names themselves. I never dare changing the etymology section too much, for fear of WP:OR, and also I'm no linguist.
Works for me
Checked I added a link to Apicomplexa. Not sure if it requires further explanation, since they're never mentioned in a focused manner in this particular article. If you consider it requires further elaboration, please do tell me. It's very funny, however, to notice that I didn't link the name, since I usually over-link taxon names.
A link is good, thanks
Checked Done. As it turns out, it was rather 'two' instead of 'several'.
Checked I added "as of 2020".
Checked It's a bad habit of mine that I never mention things such as size range and differences between species. I added several brief phrases to show the differences that they have from the type species.
The added sentences look good
Checked Much appreciated. Another bad habit of mine, I try to take notice of it because I also have a hard time reading such long sentences.
Checked I added an explanation for their likely role.
Checked Like I said above, I added more differences, but in the 'Classification' section instead.
Checked Only cold temperatures are mentioned, so I only mention those.
Checked Oops. Added another study.
Checked Another remnant prior to my contributions. Removed.
Checked True. I modified the sentence.
Checked Another remnant that I removed.
Checked Done.
Checked Am I allowed to suggest sci-hub?
I would love to, but I edit on a network whose administrators aren't particularly fond of the skull and bones
Checked Yay!

That's all I have! Give me a ping when you've responded to the above points. Fritzmann (message me) 17:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritzmann2002: Thanks a lot for the review. I responded to all points, let me know if you need anything else. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
checkY looks great, thank you for the speedy response! Approving now, congrats on another GA, Fritzmann (message me) 19:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]