Talk:Chelicerata/GA1

GA Review

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

Intro

The introduction is too long, compared to good articles. The intro is supposed to summarize the body, without giving major detail. When it comes to taxonomic group pages, I support the KISS principle, and would move just about everything to a "General physical description" section. The first paragraph should stay, the rest should be moved into the body (either together or piecewise). StevePrutz (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of the new version at User:Philcha/Sandbox/Chelicerata#Lead_.28v_1.29? That's down from 571 words and 3804 chars (incl spaces) to 449 words and 2908 chars (incl spaces). All the cuts are in the zoological description, as the other paras are short. The items about chelicerae, tagmosis and the generally very centralized nervous system are chelicerate special features, as is their near-universal inability to ingest solid food. Minimizing water loss is important - my textbook says failure to do so is why crustaceans are much less successful on land. By invertebrate standards predatory chelicerates' courtship rituals are very elaborate. Some also provide near-mammalian levels of child care. -- Philcha (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The version you proposed at User:Philcha/Sandbox/Chelicerata is certainly shorter! However I don't think it satisfies WP:LEAD, for example "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist." More specific comments:

• There is no doubt that the earliest Chelicerata were marine. That's important from an evolutionary point of view in its own right, and also raises the question of how many marine Chelicerates there are now. I don't know of any other sub-phylum that originated in the sea but is now so predominantly air-breathing.
• I think more needs to be said about chelicerae. The mere fact that they are the only appendages that appear before the mouth is significant only to the few readers familiar with the arthropod head problem.
• The diversification of chelicerate feeding strategies is a significant factor in their success.
• The centralization of the CNS is not consistent enough to be a defining feature, but is still remarkabe among arthropods.
• The near-mammalian level of parental care in some spiders and scorpions is AFAIK far beyond anything found in non-chelicerate invertebrates.
• I think the phylogeny should be included, under "summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist."

I've produced a version 2 at User:Philcha/Sandbox/Chelicerata#Lead_.28v_2.29. -- Philcha (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW you should register the fact that you're reviewing this at WP:GAN -- Philcha (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I'm puzzled that you started with the lead - most GA reviews I've seen leave the lead until last, after the main content is agreed.

I also think your last proposal still omits too much. A major problem we both face here is lack of precedents, as most zoology articles at phylum or sub-phylum level are unimpressive. There's one GA for a phylum, a handful of B-class and most of the rest are start-class. A summary of articles on phyla & sub-phyla whose names I can remember off the top:

• Insect and Trilobite are both A-class but Insect failed a GA review in Feb 2008 and I suspect still would, and I don't think Trilobite would make GA at present. Crustacea was promoted to GA in May 2006 but in its present state would fail a GA reassessment.
• Echinoderm, Gastropod B-class but would have no chance of GA in their present state.
• Sponge B-class, I'm working on it now.
• Cnidaria , Annelid, Brachiopod, Nemertea , Lancelet (redir from Cephalochrodate), Vertebrate start-class
• Hemichordata, Tunicate stub-class
• Cephalopod, Bivalve unassessed

Editors generally avoid high-level taxa because these require a larger amount of research and citations per N words of content than lower-level taxa.

Since most high-level taxa include a wide range of lower-level taxa with diverse morphologies, physiologies, and life-styles, there's a lot to say, e.g. what features are common to the taxon and which vary widely among lower-level taxa - and then the range of variation needs to be explained if possilbe.

I suggest it would be a good idea to review the rest of Chelicerate and then return to the lead. If we still have serious disagreements about the lead we could seek a second opinion.

BTW you should register the fact that you're reviewing this at WP:GAN as soon as possible. -- Philcha (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Right now, I cannot review the whole article. My 2¢ on the intro design (which I have interest in) was requested. You are right on the fact that most high taxa articles are too high profile (read: traffic) to remain GA. The only way I can think of to combat this is either a) lock the article or b) have less info to vandalize. The order Anura FA has been locked for a long time, with mild success. Some articles may be better off by withholding the details, and linking to external sites that are better suited, but this is kinda hard for a subphylum (unless there is a Chelicerata.com?). I am also contemplating the build-from-bottom-up vs. top-down notions. The latter seems illogical but is what I practice every day when writing. StevePrutz (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the problem with the current GA / FA ratings on high-level taxa is to do with traffic or vandalism - the ones I mentioned lack citations and have gaps in coverage. Anura has too many unref'd passages to survive a reassessment. GA and FA have become significantly more demanding some time in the last 2 years.

Re bottom-up vs. top-down for packages of articles, I prefer bottom-up in paleontology, so I can see what the experts are talking about when they get on to phylogeny, etc. Bottom-up also means you have a big reserve of refs and re-usable text when you get to higher taxa. However that's more difficult for a sub-phylum with 77,000 species :-(

Either way it will often be necessary to make another pass in the opposite direction, to re-balance content between articles.

Since this is not a true GA review, I think it would be best to copy all this (except the references to GA review) to the normal Talk page and then blank the GA review page and unhook it from the Talk page. What do you think? -- Philcha (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)