Talk:Hyalospheniidae/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 17:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
It's been a long time, but I think I'm willing to take a stab at reviewing this. An anonymous username, not my real name 17:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
It looks great overall; well-written, good coverage, good images, neutral, stable, etc. I did a few spot-checks and it passed all of them. There are a few things that I would recommend taking a look at, but they are rather minor:
- Quite a bit of MOS:JARGON overall, but I'm willing to let this go given that this article probably falls under the "intrinsically technical" umbrella and that most readers will likely have some familiarity with the language used.
- The very first few words of the article describe this clade as a "group" before correctly calling it a family. Perhaps reword to: "Hyalospheniidae is a family of arcellinid testate amoebae and the sole member of the infraorder Hyalospheniformes."
- Further along in the lead is the sentence "Their fossils are studied to investigate the paleoecology." This feels like something of a sentence fragment; paleoecology of what?
- "This family includes several of the most common, well-studied lobose testate amoebae (as opposed to filose testate amoebae, which belong to Cercozoa)." — This seems like a rather convoluted way of explaining the phylogeny. Entirely removing the content in parentheses probably wouldn't hurt anything, but, at the very least, perhaps mention that lobose testate amoebae belong to Lobosa (it seems rather peculiar to name one clade but not the other).
- I'm genuinely asking, as I don't even know where I would look in the MOS, but is it proper to write "Alocodera+Padaungiella" the way it is?
That's all I noticed. I'm extremely rusty so my review is a bit of a mess and probably either too strict or not strict enough. Regardless, I'm placing the article on hold, so feel free to take a look at everything I've written at your leisure. Have a good day/night! An anonymous username, not my real name 04:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @An anonymous username, not my real name, thank you for taking the time to review this article. I have modified the article following all your points. I honestly do not know if there is a MOS for the last point, so I rewrote it as "the clade containing Alocodera and Padaungiella" instead. Let me know if there are any further points that need to be fixed. —Snoteleks (Talk) 08:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Awesome work, @Snoteleks. It looks all good to me, so I've passed it. Congrats. An anonymous username, not my real name 22:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)