Talk:Bilateria/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 22:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"This means their body plans are laid around a longitudinal axis (rostral–caudal axis) with a front (or "head") and a rear (or "tail") end, as well as a left–right–symmetrical belly (ventral) and back (dorsal) surface" does this mean through the median and coronal planes respectively? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That is implied, depends whether we're thinking axes and surfaces, or dividing planes as our frame of reference.

I wonder if glossing Placozoa as simply "blob" or "blob-like animal" is more appropriate? Your decision Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I suspect the "flat" is a confusion of 'placo-' with 'platy-'.

"or secondary cavities that appear de novo" what does this mean? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Simplified.

"head (anterior) end" might read easier if you did "head end (anterior)" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.

I'm seeing a mix of British and American English like "coelum" but "conceptualized" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Some of us Brits habitually use -ize ("OE"), of course.

wikilink nephrozoans and xenacoelomorphs on first mention Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.

"parasitic worms have extremely plesiomorphic body structures" a non-apical blob creature being called a worm is kinda weird, maybe just use helminth? Especially because the non-apical, non-worm looking ones are I think usually called flukes Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the source referring to Schistosoma? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. I've removed the parasitic sentence. Given the debate about the urbilaterian in the next section, You're right about roundish vs flattish worms: I've demoted the wormlike animal discussion: that basically applies later, to the Nephrozoa.

first par of Inferred nature of the ancestor missing a ref at the end Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.

I feel like the first para needs a little more historical context since you name everyone involved in making either of the 2 hypotheses, but in the next para you don't. Like there's definitely a big history happening here, it'll just take more than a sentence to explain it properly Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Extended with some more explanation of each side's point of view.

"and more recently" what counts as recent? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The phrase is purely relative, and as such is perfectly safe: the 21st century (or the end of the 20th) is certainly "more recent" than the 19th. This is nothing like saying "now" or "recently". I don't feel we need dates for these really.

Seems like the taxobox caption is one specific author's point of view? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded for neutrality.

Actually, since there's quite a few ideas on what the urbilaterian looked like, I'm not sure it's the most NPOV to pick a favorite to display in the taxobox, especially since Xenacoelomorpha is the least-speciose branch of bilateria, and this isn't the urbilaterian article. I wonder if a collage or maybe a picture of a bilaterally symmetrical embryo might be more appropriate? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Added a nauplius larva, which is neutral about the urbilaterian theories. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

link deuterostome and protostome on first mention, and fix the duplinks Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Linked, and done.

Dunkleosteus77

Sorry, real life happened, give me like the weekend Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article passes GA. I'm not sure where to put it at Wikipedia:Good articles/Natural sciences Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. It's a group of Animals. This is where the naive classification breaks down; 'Invertebrates' is the nearest match. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]