Talk:Chelicerata/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I have finished my review of the article. Below is a checklist template filled out, and specific comments and questions below that. Let me know if you would like any clarification or additional comments. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Nice article, no longer any reason to keep on hold, passing article to GA status..

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Well written and seems to follow the manual of style sufficiently to meet the GA criteria.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See the notes regarding citations formatting below

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See the specific notes below

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• I noticed a mistake/unclear internal link. In the major sub-groups section is the following section: "However the structure of "family tree" relationships within the Chelicerata has been controversial ever since the late 19th century. An attempt in 2002 to combine analysis of RNA features of modern chelicerates and anatomical features of modern and fossil ones produced credible results for many lower-level groups, but its results for the high-level relationships between major sub-groups of chelicerates were unstable, in other words minor changes in the inputs caused significant changes in the outputs of the computer program used (POY)." POY links to Time's Person of the Year. I am confident that this is not the proper link; I would bet that the link is supposed to go to the computer program used for this analysis, but that is not the case. This internal link should be either removed, or fixed. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Unlinked. Why on earth did I think there was an article about the software? --Philcha (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• The references section has differing formats. Some of the web-retreived sources are dated in the format "retrieved on 2008-11-6" for example, while others say "retrieved on 6 November 2008." This should be consistent throughout the article. (forgot to sign) Theseeker4 (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Changed all to {{citation}} as that can handle any type of source that I've used. --Philcha (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• The table titled "Diversity of living Chelicerates" under the Diversity section has a few groups with no data about their diet. If that information is not available (due to ambiguity of the fossil record for extinct groups, etc.), that should be noted in the table, or the information should be provided and cited. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No sources that I've found says anything of the diet of Schizomida, Amblypygi, Palpigradi or Ricinulei as groups. Ditto for Google Scholar, although it finds reports of carnivory by individual species. The "default" for arachnids is carnivorous, but the diverse diets of Opiliones (harvestmen) and Acari (mites and ticks) make that assumption unsafe - and in 2007 a mainly vegetarian, social spider species was described. For these lesser-known groups the arachnidologists spend most of their time and ink trying to nail down the classification. It also looks like most groups for which "Diet" is blank are small to very small and live in environments that make observation very difficult, e.g. in leaf-litter or between soil grains. Taking the groups one at a time:

• Schizomida:
  • Ruppert, Fox & Barnes' Invertebrate Zoology (already cited) treats these as a sub-group of very small Uropygi, and implies that Uropygi are carnivores.
  • D.T. Anderson in chapter "The Chelicerata" of "Invertebrate Zoology" (ed. D.T Anderson; OUP, 2001; ISBN 0195513681) says nothing about Schizomida (rolls them up into "Pseudoscorpions"; only 1 para about Pseudoscorpions; treats Pseudoscorpions as carnivores)
  • The Neglected Cousins: What do we Know about the Smaller Arachnid Orders? argues for classifying them as a sister-group to Uropygi and that's about it. The author says outright that Uropygi are carnivores.
  • Google Scholar got me nothing about diet of Schizomida at all.
  • IMO it's best to leave this blank, as even "thought to be carnivores" would be pushing the sources too hard.
• Amblypygi:
  • Ruppert, Fox & Barnes' Invertebrate Zoology (already cited) says nothing about diet of Amblypygi.
  • D.T. Anderson in chapter "The Chelicerata" of "Invertebrate Zoology" (ed. D.T Anderson; OUP, 2001; ISBN 0195513681) says nothing about Amblypygi (rolls them up into "Pseudoscorpions"; only 1 para about Pseudoscorpions; treats Pseudoscorpions as carnivores)
  • Google Scholar got me nothing about diet of Amblypygi in general. Some species have been observed taking small birds and anuran amphibians.
  • "Carnivorous, where known" is the absolute max that can be squeezed out of the sources. IMO it's best to leave this blank.
• Palpigradi:
  • Ruppert, Fox & Barnes' Invertebrate Zoology (already cited) says nothing about diet of Palpigradi.
  • D.T. Anderson in chapter "The Chelicerata" of "Invertebrate Zoology" (ed. D.T Anderson; OUP, 2001; ISBN 0195513681) says nothing about Palpigradi (rolls them up into "Pseudoscorpions"; only 1 para about Pseudoscorpions; treats Pseudoscorpions as carnivores)
  • Google Scholar got me nothing about diet of Palpigradi in general, in fact nothing relevant.
  • IMO it's best to leave this blank.
• Ricinulei:
  • Ricinulei says carnivorous, but no source.
  • Ruppert, Fox & Barnes' Invertebrate Zoology (already cited) says nothing about diet of Ricinulei.
  • D.T. Anderson in chapter "The Chelicerata" of "Invertebrate Zoology" (ed. D.T Anderson; OUP, 2001; ISBN 0195513681) says nothing about Ricinulei (rolls them up into "Pseudoscorpions"; only 1 para about Pseudoscorpions; treats Pseudoscorpions as carnivores)
  • Google Scholar got me nothing about diet of Ricinulei in general, in fact nothing relevant.
  • IMO it's best to leave this blank.

I was under the impression that there was probably not enough information to fill in anything concrete. Rather than just leaving it blank, my first impulse would be to fill it in with "information not available" or "unknown," but if convention in similar articles is simply to leave it blank, I would certainly not say it has to be changed to pass GA review. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I considered phrases like "information not available", "unknown" and "presumed carnivorous", but thought even those went too far beyond the reelvant sources I've found. --Philcha (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• I read the lead section several times, and cannot determine any way to reduce the size without taking away from the content. The lead is a little large, but for the material covered, I do not see any way to reduce it. I would support the retention of the lead as-is, and respond to any "it's too long" arguments with a ignore all rules argument. Other than that, the above noted changes being made would allow this article to pass the GA review as far as I am concerned. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm beginning to think WP:LEAD needs to be changed for some types of subject, including phyla and sub-phyla. 2 previous GA reviewers, who AFAIK have do not interact much, concluded that it was best to accept long leads for article on high-level taxa. --Philcha (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, It seems to look good to me now. I will wait a bit for a response before I change anything myself, but I think the article is at the point where it can be promoted to GA status. Good job to everyone who worked on it, especially Philcha. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Passing GA Review I believe this article meets and exceeds all GA criteria. Good job to everyone involved. I think this article could even reach FA status with a little more work, as it is a very well-written and comprehensive article. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

References