Talk:Echinoderm/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Mover of molehills (talk · contribs) 12:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to getting started with this review! Mover of molehills (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the review sections:

Well-written[edit]

I'll move through the sections and do the lede last:

Taxonomy and evolution[edit]

  • The sentence "Along with the chordates...protostomes" is quite a run on right now and needs reorganizing. One thought I had is: "Echinoderms are bilaterians, meaning that their left and right sides are mirror images of each other. Like chordates and hemichordates, they are further classified as deuterostomes, meaning that the blastospore (the first opening to form in embryonic development) becomes the anus instead of the mouth." This could replace everything from "Along with the chordates" to "connecting the two," cutting out what seems to me to be a lot of unnecessary detail about the difference between protostomes and deuterostomes. What do you think of this? Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • What you have really helps. The sentence still feels like it has one too many clauses, though - is there any chance you could say "during the early development of the embryo, the the first opening to form" with "the first opening to form during embryo development"? Mover of molehills (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.
  • I wonder if you need the sentence "The larvae of echinoderms have bilateral symmetry....typically pentamerism." It is phrased as something of a run-on right now, and you cover all of this information later during the "Diversity" section. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed.
  • I also feel like the phrase "Early analyses gave inconsistent results, the main hypothesis being that Ophiuroidea..." could be "Historically, scientists believed that Ophiruoidea..." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • The phrase "gave the following phylogenetic tree" is kind of awkward because you don't actually give the tree until a sentence later. I would just say "revised their phylogenetic tree" the first time and change "gave the same tree" to "supported the findings of the first study" the second time. When you then present the tree, readers will assume that it is the most modern version. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • Nitpick: "A total of about" can just be "about." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nit squashed.
  • The sentences "All echinoderms are marine and nearly all are benthic" needs a better connection to the "Diversity" section. I would combine it with the next sentence by saying "All echinoderms are marine animals, but they are found in habitats ranging from shallow intertidal areas to abyssal depths." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • You don't need to say "The oldest candidate echinoderm fossil may be", since "candidate" already implies uncertainty. I would just say "The oldest candidate echinoderm fossil is." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, now you're really taking a chance on the grockle editors!
  • "It is a disc-like fossil" is vague, I would say "Arkarua fossils are disc-like, with radial ridges..." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • "However, it has" is also a vague reference. I would say "However, the fossils have no stereom..." to be clearer. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • Nitpick: "and the identification is inconclusive" should be "so the identification is inconclusive." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, ok, done, but that's a standard British usage.
  • Well, it's your choice then. I'm not an expert on BrEng, and it appears that that's the English variant used for this article, so you can leave it either way. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries.
  • I am confused by the current wording of the sentence "This ancestral stock... such an existence." I would say "This organism adopted an attached mode of life with suggestion feeding, and soon developed radial symmetry in order to optimize its feeding success." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited, but we can't assume feeding was the reason.
  • Nitpick: "The larvae of all echinoderms are even now bilaterally symmetrical" sounds better as "Even so, the larvae of modern echinoderms are bilaterally symmetrical." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Marginal, done.
  • I'm not sure if the sentence "The starfish and crinoids... adult form" is even relevant to the topic at hand. Could you delete it or connect it somehow to fossil history? Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • "Gave rise to free-moving groups" is worded confusingly. I would say "Are believed to have gathered in free-moving groups." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited.
  • This one might need one more pass. If you say they evolved into animals able to move freely, you're not really talking about the first echinoderms at all. Could you try to phrase it so it still mentions the congregation in groups and focuses on the original animals? Mover of molehills (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does NOT mean congregation of individuals into social groups, it means evolution into later taxa (aka "groups"). I think the wording is fine now.
  • Got it. I see the confusion. I'm sorry to press this point, but I still don't understand why you're talking about what the first echinoderms evolved into when you have been talking about the echinoderms themselves. I would do one of the following: if the first echinoderms were motile, you can just say "The first echinoderms were able to move around freely" or something like it. If they were non-motile, I would make this clear by saying "The first echinoderms were non-motile, but they evolved into animals which were able to move freely." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • Rephrase: "The evolution of endoskeletal...early developments" is awkward. Could you say "They quickly developed endoskeletal plates with stereom structure, as well as external ciliary grooves for feeding." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • Nitpick: "attached to the substrate and were orientated with their oral surfaces upwards" sounds better as "attached to their substrate, and were oriented with their oral surfaces facing up." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited, but I find "upwards" more natural.
  • I also find the phrase "the fossil echinoderms" to be vague - it would sound better as "these early echinoderms." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • Is it necessary to add "structures very similar to the pinnules of a modern crinoid"? It just makes the sentence feel too long. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trimmed.
  • I feel like the phrase "It seems probable is the mouth-upward orientation is the primitive state and that at some stage,..." could just be "Eventually,..." - let me know what you think of that. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it was repeating the previous thought.
  • Similarly, "crinoids reversed this" would then need to become "crinoids reversed their orientation" for clarity. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's wrong!
  • Then what is the "this" in the phrase "reversed this"? I just think it would be good to specify, because it's confusing as is. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Edited, "this" => orientation, and moved the "except for the crinoids" phrase away from the "reversed" (to which it never belonged). The crinoids were the only group that did not reverse.

Anatomy and physiology[edit]

  • No need to say "pentaradial, or five-sided" - especially with "pentaradial" wikilinked, the sentence will flow better without this unnecessary explanation. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed.
  • Similarly, and to shorten this same first sentence, I don't think you need to say "like embryonic chordates" - you have already talked about the comparative symmetries of echinoderms and chordates earlier on. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed.
  • Could you be a little bit more clear about what you mean by "later" in the phrase "Later, the left side of the body grows"? My impression from earlier in the article is that it means "During metamorphosis," but I'm not sure. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • For clarity, I would rephrase "Within the Asterozoa...rule" to "Within the Asterozoa, however, there are a few exceptions to this rule." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
    • No, it's a subphylum not a genus.
  • "The starfish genus Leptasterias normally have six arms" is incorrect grammar, since you are essentially saying "the starfish genus have." I would rephrase as "Many starfish in the genus Leptasterias have six arms..." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded.
  • Nitpick: For flow and to reduce choppiness, could you change "Also the Brisingida have six-armed species" to "The Brisingida also have six-armed species"? Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • I would take out the sentence "They developed from other members...symmetric larvae" since it is the third time you have mentioned this information. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • Not related to the review, but that photo of Labidiaster annulatus is going to cost me some sleep. A little bit too much symmetry for my liking. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noted!
  • For clarity, I would change "calcareous plates or ossicles" to "calcite-based plates known as ossicles." Then, I think that you can just use the next sentence because its content is already summarized. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • Could you be more clear about what you mean by ossicles "articulating with each other"? It's hard to visualize right now, so further explanation or a visual would help. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • They form flexible joints.
  • I understand. What I'm really looking is a replacement of the verb "articulate" with something more clear, such as "overlap" or any other better synonym that you can think of. Mover of molehills (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilinked: bone A articulates with bone B, it's the relevant term of art, which is immediately explained by "to form flexible joints"; I can't be clearer than that.
  • "may be flat plates or bear" could be simplified to "may bear," since the idea that the plates may be unadorned is implicit in the word "may." Mover of molehills (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • The parenthetical phrase in "epidermis (skin)" doesn't seem necessary, especially since the relevant article is WikiLinked. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • The phrase "such as the "Aristotle's lantern" mouthparts of sea urchins used for grinding" is a bit awkward. I would say "such as the chewing organ known as "Aristotle's lantern" in sea urchins." Mover of molehills (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • The sentence "Despite the robustness...record" is hard to read as well. I would say "Although individual ossicles are fairly robust, complete skeletons of starfish, brittle stars and crinoids are rare in the fossil record." Mover of molehills (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • Nitpick: to improve flow, I would change "radial limbs, pushing the existing plates outwards" to "radial limbs while pushing the existing plates outwards" - it just removes an unnecessary clause from the sentence. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited.
  • The sentence "Sea urchins on the other hand...limestone" doesn't read very well right now. I would say "On the other hand, sea urchins are often well preserved in chalk beds or limestone." Mover of molehills (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • Could you find a more specific way to describe "crystalline continuity"? It's a bit of a confusing term that isn't WikiLinked. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has been edited.
  • For clarity, I think it would be worth changing "On fracturing such rock, distinctive cleavage patterns can be seen and sometimes even the intricate internal and external structure of the test" to "By fracturing such rock, paleontologists can observe distinctive cleavage patterns which reveal the internal structure of the test." Mover of molehills (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited.
  • Nitpick: for constistency, "the dark melanin" should just be "dark melanin". Mover of molehills (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • For concision and flow, "and as a result many echinoderms change appearance completely" could just be "causing many echinoderms to completely change their appearance." Mover of molehills (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • Nitpick: "change from moving flexibly" sounds more natural as "go from moving flexibly." Mover of molehills (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • "lock their normally mobile spines rigidly" is redundant, I would just say "lock their normally mobile spines." Mover of molehills (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited.

More[edit]

  • Nitpicks: "This is a network of" would be clearer as "This system is composed of fluid-filled canals" for clarity, and "derived from" should be "emanating from." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited; "derived from" does mean derivation over evolutionary time; it does not mean emanating from a current structure.
  • For concision, "aboral (upper)" could just be "upper". Mover of molehills (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, aboral is upper only when the mouth is facing downwards, which it often is, but not always; in the crinoids it faces up, for instance. i.e. the (upper) gloss is local not universal. Best as it is.
  • I think "a slender duct, the stone canal" would sound better as "a slender duck known as the "stone canal"". Mover of molehills (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding clutter like "known as" and scare quotes doesn't anybody; and many GA reviewers and copy-editors would object strenuously to their presence. The phrase is clearly in apposition to the "a slender duct" description already. In a science article, we are not obliged to be ashamed of the subject's terms of art.
  • The sentence "From this, radial canals...echinoids" doesn't give enough detail about the differences between different subclasses of echinoderms. I would say "Eventually, the ring canal branches into a series of radial canals, which lie along the arms in asteroids and adjoin to the test in echinoids." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded.
  • It would be good if the sentence "Short lateral canals...ampulla" had an appropriate sense of finality since you have just delivered a lot of information. I would say "Finally, the radial canals are divided into short lateral canals, each of which ends in an ampulla." (Note the WikiLink) Mover of molehills (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't "finally", as there are the tube feet to follow, in the next sentence. The thing that clarifies this is the diagram, so I've added mention of ring and radial canals and ampullae to the caption. I don't suppose you want to wikilink an Ancient Roman pot, by the way.
  • For clarity, "and is known as a podium or tube feet" should be ", in which case it is known as a podium or tube feet." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited.
  • For concision, it would be nice if "and is most obviously expressed in the tube feet which can be extended or contracted by the redistribution of fluid between the foot and the internal sac" was "and allows the tube feet to be extended or contracted by the redistribution of internal fluid" - right now, the sentence is a bit of a run-on. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited.
  • The term "wafting motion" is a bit vague - could you use a better adjective than "wafting"? Mover of molehills (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited. The word "wafting" gives quite a good picture of what it looks like: little particles of food in the water are wafted gently along as the tube feet swish back and forth encouraging the particles in one direction without actually grasping them. I don't think we'll easily do better.
  • For clarity, it seems like "in the centre of the aboral body surface" could just be "in the centre on top of their body." Mover of molehills (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that would depend which surface was on top, and that has changed between groups and through history.
  • The sentence "In other species...ingested" is in passive voice. I would say "Other species of echinoderms may digest whole food items such as molluscs." Mover of molehills (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded in active voice.
  • For flow, I would combine the two sentence about brittle stars to "Brittle stars have a blind gut with no intestine or anus, causing them to expel food waste through their mouth." Mover of molehills (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded.
  • The listing "graze, tear and chew" seems like it is going into unnecessary detail. To shorten the sentence, could you just say "consume algae..."? Mover of molehills (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The detail is only those few words, and they describe the processes of scraping up plant material, tearing off lumps of such material instead, and chewing such lumps down into a finely-ground mush. This is strikingly different from what starfish, sea cucumbers, or crinoids get up to. The four words are doing rather a good job, I'd say.
  • Got it, the main part that I'm worried about hear is the long nature of the sentence. Could you change "algae and sometimes other animal or vegetable material" to "animals or vegetable material including algae" in order to improve the flow? Mover of molehills (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded and shortened: algae are the main things on their menu.
  • "with their buccal tentacles which are modified tube feet" would sound better as "with modified tube feet nown as buccal tentacles." Mover of molehills (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded.
  • In the same sentence "capacious cloaca" might as well be "large cloaca for simplicity. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • Similarly, I wonder if there should be a comma between "mouth" and "which" at the end of this paragraph. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • What does "echinoderms are an exception" mean? Hasn't all the previous information been describing echinoderms? Mover of molehills (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded; they're unusual in having both.
  • In the phrase "Haemal and perihaemal systems are derived from the coelom", I would clarify "main coelom," since you have been describing a lot of different coeloms in this text. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded.
  • Nitpick: "larger and granular" should be "large and granular," since you aren't comparing it to anything. Also, "suggested to be" is a bit of vague phrasing - I would say "believed to be." Mover of molehills (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • For consistency of grammar, "potential osmoregulatory cells in sea cucumbers" should be "which may serve for osmoregulation in sea cucumbers." (Note WikiLink) Mover of molehills (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • "consists of a modified nerve net consisting" is redundant; I would just take out the second "consisting." Mover of molehills (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good catch, done.
  • "While the ancestral condition is considered to be the possession of one genital aperture" would sound better as "While early echinoderms are believed to have had only one genital aperture." Mover of molehills (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might, but it's not necessarily the same thing. Only some of the early echinoderms were on the direct line to modern species; most others were on early side-branches which have become extinct.
  • In that case, could you say "While the ancestors of modern echinoderms are believed..."? It just sounds more natural to me. Mover of molehills (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done that. I wonder if we may perhaps be having a Brit/Yank thing with some of these phrasing questions.

Regeneration[edit]

  • I agree that the regeneration powers of regeneration are remarkable, but it feels like needless editorializing. Could you say "Many echinoderms have a unique capacity for regeneration" instead? Mover of molehills (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'll not be surprised to know that "unique" is a bit of a risky term here. Let's say "great powers".
  • In the sentence "The discharged organs and tissues are regenerated over the course of several months," it would be good to clarify whether this is about sea cucumbers in particular or echinoderms in general. If it's about sea cucumbers, I would fold it in with the last sentence. Mover of molehills (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • The sentences "Sea urchins are constantly replacing spines lost through damage. Sea stars and sea lilies readily lose and regenerate their arms" come across as kind of choppy right now. Could you combine them into a single list-like sentence? Mover of molehills (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • The placement of references 43-45 really breaks up the sentence; I would move those to the end of the sentence. Mover of molehills (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • The use of "in a few species" and then "in some species" comes across as redundant in this same sentence. I would change the second phrase to "individual, and sometimes the arms are intentionally detached for the purpose of asexual reproduction." Mover of molehills (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited.
  • The sentence "The robust larval growth is responsible for the popularity of echinoderms as model organisms in developmental biology" feels entirely irrelevant here. Could you move it or just take it out? Mover of molehills (talk)!
    • Merged to 'In research'.

Reproduction[edit]

  • Nitpick: for clarity, "they nearly all have" should become "almost all species have." Then, to avoid redundancy, change "though a few species" to "though some species". Mover of molehills (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • The phrase "thus often being called "comets"" is really awkward. I would say something like "and thus are often known as comets" or "and are sometimes known as comets" to be more clear. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • More grammar: I think "Asexual reproduction in the planktonic larvae can be" should be "Asexual reproduction in the planktonic larvae can be accomplished" or something like that. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited.
  • The phrase "The parts that develop into the new larvae vary from the preoral hood" is confusing. I would say "Larvae can develop from the preoral hood..." and list from there. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded.
  • The phrase "is a cost borne by the larva both in resources and in development time" would be clearer as "is costly to the larvae both in terms of resources and development time." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited.
  • "when they detect predators (by sensing dissolved fish mucus)" is also an awkward phrasing. I would say "when they detect dissolved fish mucus, alerting them to a potential predator." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited.

Larval development[edit]

  • To start with, I feel like it might make sense to make this into a subsection under the "reproduction" section. It seems like most articles about animals group these two topics together. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • Given what you told me earlier, it seems like the phrase "usually known as 'pluteus' larvae" should just be "usually known as pluteus larvae". Mover of molehills (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence is specifically talking about the names here.
  • Are you sure about the phrase "At this stage the bilateral symmetry is lost"? Mathematicallly, it seems like a starfish whose arms are evenly spaced still has five lines of bilateral symmetry. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No biologist thinks of it like that, but removed anyway.
  • The sentence "There seems to be an evolutionary trend towards a "lower-risk–lower-gain" strategy of direct development" is too vague. Is it just talking about echinoderms? Animals in general? If it's just about echinoderms, I would just delete it because it essentially says the same thing as the rest of the paragraph. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gone.

Distribution and habitat[edit]

  • "Refugia" should be linked.
    • Done.
  • This paragraph seriously overuses em dashes - I think that you should have at most one set of them in such a short passage. I would keep the first pair, either delete the phrase "sometimes accounting for up to 90% of organisms or find a way to break it up into another sentence, and then remove the qualification "that is, they live on the seafloor" - you can link the "benthic" article if you think it's necessary. I don't care too much what information you keep or how you move it around, I just think that the formatting needs to change. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Split and repunctuated.
  • Nitpick: "such organisms as barnacles" would sound better as "organisms such as barnacles." Mover of molehills (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • To an American ear. Done but take note.
  • Good for me to know, thanks. Feel free to just say no if my edits are interfering with the regional dialect. Mover of molehills (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, we should probably aim for mid-Atlantic neutrality where possible!
  • Similar rephrase: "with the aid of ocean currents can be transported for great distances" would be better as "can be transported great distances with the aid of ocean currents." Mover of molehills (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ditto.

Mode of life[edit]

  • For simplicity, I see no reason why the title "locomotion" can't just be "movement." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a 'further' link. 'Locomotion' is the term of art here. An arm may move, an animal locomotes from A to B.
  • The lines from "The tube feet typically have a tip...provides adhesion" feel like they are delivering information in a strange order. I would say "They use small suction pads at the tips of their tube feets as well as the secretion of mucus to adhere themselves to surfaces. Mover of molehills (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the suction pads merely adhered the animal would be stuck, wouldn't it... No, it's key that we talk about creating vacuum (reversibly), and the sticky secretion is definitely secondary to that. I'd say it wasn't badly expressed.
  • Okay, that's a good point. Do you think we could reduce the number of clauses in the second sentence by saying "This combines with some stickiness provided by the secretion of mucus to provide adhesion"? Mover of molehills (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded.
  • "Waves of tube feet contractions and relaxations move along" is confusing. I would say "The tube feet contract and relax in waves, causing the animal to move slowly along" instead. Mover of molehills (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, but that's not what it means, nor what it correctly says. There are waves of activity, the motions of one tube foot after another (think of the legs of a centipede), going faster than the animal as a whole.
  • Could we at least change "Waves of tube feet contractions and relaxations" to "The tube feet contract and relax in waves"? That seems to carry the same information, and moves it to active voice. Mover of molehills (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.
  • The phrase "and the animal moves in jerks" feel incongruous with the sentence it's in. I would recommend rephrasing this sentence as "They move by gripping the substrate with their two forward arms, "rowing" with their two side arms, and letting their hindermost arm trail behind." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, the locomotion of the animal as a whole is quite different from what the tube feet or indeed the arms are up to (there are 3 different levels of movement here). Locomotion is jerky, where the tube feet move in smooth little oscillations. (I suspect you might like the "evolution by jerks" vs "evolution by creeps" at Stephen Jay Gould#Punctuated equilibrium.)
  • That's fine, this one isn't that important. I would still recommend changing "trails" to "trails behind" for clarity, unless that's an Am/Br thing. Mover of molehills (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's redundant, but never mind!
  • The next sentence is also a little bit awkward: I would say "They also use their arm spines to provide traction on the substrate, and their supple arms to grab nearby objects." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded.
  • "Some species bore into rock and they usually do this by" could just be "Some species of sea urchins bore into the rock by." (note both the shortening and the clarification) Mover of molehills (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded.
  • When you say of sea cucumbers, "Many can move on the surface", do you mean the surface of the water or the substrate at the bottom of the water? It would be good to clarify this. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sea bed.
  • The phrase "expand and contract their body or rhythmically flex it and "swim"" feels redundant. I would cut it to "rhythmically flex their body in order to "swim"". Mover of molehills (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded; once again, these two types of movement (peristalsis and flexing) are very different.
  • The line "These stems can bend and the arms can roll and unroll and that is about the limit of the sea lily's movement" is extremely poorly phrased. I would say "Sea lilies are able to bend their stalks and roll and unroll their arms, and a few species can crawl along the seabed, but other than that they have no capacity for movement." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded.
  • I would combine the phrase "Many can also swim with their arms" into the previous sentence instead of combining it with the sentence about how sessile they are. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
Feeding[edit]
  • The modes of feeding vary greatly between the different echinoderm taxa" is kind of a passive way to phrase it. I would say "Different echinoderm taxa feed in very different ways." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, "mode of feeding" is a term of art in zoology.
  • The sentence "Crinoids and some brittle stars...active hunters" is a run-on. I would recommend breaking it up at the semicolon. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Split, but there was no run-on grammatically.
  • The sentence "Crinoids are suspension feeders and spread their arms wide to catch particles floating past" seems entirely redundant with what you have just said. I would cut this sentence and make the next one "Crinoids catch food particles with the tube feet on their pinnules, move them into the ambulacral grooves, wrap them in mucus and then convey them to the mouth using the cilia on the grooves." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded.
  • Does it make sense to describe a dichotomy between basket stars and brittle stars? I thought that basket stars were a subtaxa of brittle stars. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are, but they have distinctive behaviours. Added 'other'.
  • The phrase "though usually one predominates" is unclear - which one? Or do you mean each species has its own preferred method (in which case you should clarify that)? Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed. It means the latter; it's actually explained in the rest of the paragraph.
  • "Others are scavengers and feeders on detritus" would sound better as "Others are scavengers which feed on detritus." "Feeder" isn't a word you hear very often. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, two different things. For the second one, we could say 'detritus feeder' or 'detritivore'.
  • Nitpick: "specialised mouthparts known as Aristotle's lantern" sounds strange because you're equating a singular with a plural. Would it be fair to say "specialized mouthpart"? Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, we can't do that; Aristotle's lantern has five jaws. Best as it is, I think.
  • I thought that the picture "File:Neothyonidium magnum (Burrowing sea cucumber).jpg" might be nice to add to this section - not just for the sake of decoration, but because it effectively illustrates what is going on. Sorry if this is the wrong section. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not, added.
  • You begin two paragraphs in a row with the redundant phrasing "Many sea urchins" and then "Many sea cucumbers". I would change the second one to "Sea cucumbers tend to." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded, but the "many" was not redundant (however repetitive), we need to say it's a lot of 'em.
  • Make sure you link "adductor muscle." Also, for consistency, it would be worth saying "As the adductor muscle of the bivalve" rather than "As the adductor muscle of the shellfish." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • Nitpick: "The same everted stomach process" would sound better as "The same process of stomach eversion." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded.
Defense mechanisms[edit]
  • The phrase "echinoderms are the prey of many organisms" is passive; I would say "echinoderms are preyed upon by many organisms." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • To make the rhythm of the sentence more clear, I would change "which can be inherent or delivered through the tube feet" to a parenthetical phrase. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • "and entangle and permanently disable an attacker" feels redundant, I would say "to entangle and permanently disable an attacker." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. It was a Britannic phrasing.
  • "Another defensive strategy sometimes adopted by sea cucumbers is to rupture the body wall" could be condensed as "Sea cucumbers also occasionally defend themselves by rupturing their body wall" Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded. Note that "defensive strategy" is yet another term of art, but we can let this one go.
  • "may undergo autotomy when attacked, an arm becoming detached" would sound better as "may undergo autotomy when attacked, detaching an arm" (also, no need for the duplink). Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • The connection of "It is not unusual to find starfish with arms of different sizes in various stages of regrowth" to this section is tenuous. I would recommend just deleting it, or perhaps moving it to the "regeneration" section. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, it's covered over there already.

Ecology[edit]

  • Another nice image that could go with this section: "File:Blue Linckia Starfish.JPG". This one is a bit more optional, but I do think it provides an effective illustration of the symbiosis between starfish and coral reefs. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added.
  • The sentence "An example is the change...1983" feels like the wrong order of information delivery. I would say "In 1983, for example, the mass mortality of the tropical sea urchin Diadema antillarum caused a change from a coral-dominated reef system to an alga-dominated one in the Caribbean." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rearranged.
  • The sentence "Echinoderms form part of the diet...humans" feels redundant with some of the information in the section above, and also implies that the section above was missing quite a bit of information. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merged the predators lists.

Use by humans[edit]

  • Nitpick: "These were mainly" sounds better as "The majority of these were". Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • The phrase "south east Asia" should be combined into "Southeast Asia" and WikiLinked. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • "the red Holothuria edulis" should be "the red sea cucumber Holothuria edulis." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added.
  • The sentence "The quality is assessed by the colour which can range from light yellow to bright orange", because it does not say which colors are better. I would restructure this as a sentence in the form of "Gonads of color X are generally considered of higher quality than gonads of color Y."
    • Reworded.
  • I don't understand what you mean by "drying for the arts and craft trade" - could you clarify that? Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • They stick on dried starfish to create artworks, rather as small schoolchildren glue pasta to things and paint it in jolly colours to create "things of beauty" for their parents' homes for the following 20 years or so... Reworded.
  • And that's all! After you finish responding to these comments, I'm ready to pass the article on this section. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks!

Verifiable[edit]

@Chiswick Chap: The rest of the comments for the review will be in this section as I check through the citations. Hopefully, unless the article has substantial referencing issues, this should mean that the bulk of the work for you is over. Mover of molehills (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, let's hope so!
  • Why do you need quotes around "(Holothuroidea + Echinoidea)"? Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Parentheses, you mean: because the group being talked about is the-pair-of-them, not one or the other separately.
  • I don't see a reference for the "external phylogeny" tree provided. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a ref for context.
  • The first use of reference 11 should be taken out, it does not support the text but ref 12 does. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • I feel a little bit uncomfortable with how you present the list "Two main subdivisons...paracrinoids" using the exact same format as the source. Is this standard in biology, or is there a way to rephrase it? Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There isn't a lot of scope for rewording, as you rightly indicate; the Wikipedia position is that lists can't be copyrighted as anyone is free to name the items there. The order was in fact already not identical, but I've varied the wording further for you.
  • The list information is good to know. Honestly, the extra words feel like they are just padding - feel free to leave it as it was. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, once someone has waved the flag of copyvio, however minor as here, it's best to be sure there is nothing that anyone could complain about. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the Eleutherozoa or the Pelmatazoa mentioned in ref 12. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a ref.
  • The phrase "so the identification is inconclusive" is taken directly from the source, I would rewrite it. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • No need to cite reference 11 twice in a row; I would combine these into one. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • It doesn't seem like "The first echinoderms were non-motile, but evolved into animals able to move freely" is supported by ref 15. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.

Verifiable 2[edit]

  • I'm not sure I see support for the phrase "an adaptation to their sessile existence". Mover of molehills (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a ref.
  • I don't see support for everything from "This is because they quickly...lengthening the arms." Mover of molehills (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed.
  • The sentence "The epidermis consists of cells...toxins" is similarly unsupported. Mover of molehills (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replaced with new ref.
  • The article doesn't mention the specific colors of pigmentation and the mechanisms behind them. Mover of molehills (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.
  • The phrase about catch connective tissue changing "in seconds or minutes under nervous control" is present verbatim in the source. This could definitely use a better rephrase. Mover of molehills (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited.
  • Could you point me to the evidence for the sentence "Holothuroids...sea water"? Mover of molehills (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rewritten, new ref.
  • Nitpick: the evidence for source 33 seems to be found from 790-793 rather than 780-783. Mover of molehills (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed, thanks.
  • In reference 94, I don't see anything related to echinoderms at all on page 905. Mover of molehills (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess you mean [34] not [94]. Removed.
  • The phrase "Crinoids are passive suspension feeders" is directly taken from the source, and could use a rephrase. Mover of molehills (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm, "suspension feeder" is a term of art, and passivity is a key feature, as suspension feeding is generally active. Rejiggled the words, but this is both extremely minor (unnecessary, beyond GA criteria) and awkward to avoid.
  • I don't see evidence for the phrase "The water vascular system, haemal system and perihaemal system form the tubular coelomic system." Mover of molehills (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source states "General morphology": "The water vascular system is one of three parts of the tubular coelomic system. The other parts are the haemal system (hs) and the perihaemal system (phs), which usually surrounds the haemal system."
  • Maybe the wrong section, but WikiLink "innate immune system." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • I think that reference 4 is the wrong reference in 4b. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replaced.
  • I see the sentence "The gonads occupy much of the body cavities of sea urchins and sea cucumbers" supported for sea cucumbers, but not sea urchins - could you point me to the appropriate reference? Mover of molehills (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added ref.
  • Could you point me towards the discussion of "epimorphosis and morphallaxis" in source 53? From what I can see, it is mainly talking about regeneration of the gut. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dedifferentiation: throughout, eg "As myoepithelial cells dedifferentiate, their myofilaments form dense spindle-like structures"
    • Morphallaxis: "gut regeneration involves a morphallactic remodeling of the remaining intestinal tissues".
    • Epimorphosis: added ref.

Verifiable 3[edit]

  • I don't see support for the sentence "the larvae are mostly planktonic...larvae" in the given source. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed 'mostly'; the matter is covered better in the last para of the section.
  • The sentence "after 500 million years of larval evolution, about 68% of species whose development is known have a yolk-feeding larva" is much too close to the source. Try a better paraphrase. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded.
  • Reference 77a does not seem to support any of the attached text - consider double-checking this. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source has been updated. Rewritten.
  • I also don't see support for the sentence "the two forward arms... jerks." Mover of molehills (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replaced very old source, rewritten.
  • Reference 92a doesn't seem to mention the predators of echinoderms at all. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It says "are frequently eaten by...".
  • I don't see any mention that echinoderms are "relatively large" compared to other invertebrates in the given source. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed.
  • Ref 92b doesn't seem to support the given text either - I wonder if this article has changed since it was cited in 2013? Mover of molehills (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, as above, it's been rewritten. Redone the text without it.
  • I feel like the phrase "0.1 gigatons of carbon" is misleading because this seems to be referring to elemental carbon and not CO2 (while I think most estimates of carbon sequestration are given in terms of CO2). I believe 0.1 Gt of C is equal to 0.37 Gt CO2. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.
  • I don't see support for the phrase "In 2010, 373,000 tonnes of echinoderms were harvested" in source 101. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Used the FAO ref instead, and updated the date and the harvest.
  • Source 102 just redirects to the home page for that website, which isn't very helpful. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Updated URL, added page ref.
  • Source 105 does not mention Peru or Spain, nor which colors of gonads are considered better than others. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed those details.

The link in source 107 doesn't seem to be about echinoderms - another home page. I think you want this link: http://annex.exploratorium.edu/imaging_station/research/urchin/story_urchin1.php. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Updated URL, added archive.
  • And that (finally) is the last of my comments! Once you finish replying to these, I will be ready to promote the article. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Broad[edit]

  • This article is overall very complete. The one thing it might be missing is a section on "Etymology," although I'm not sure if there's much interesting to say. If you don't want to add an etymology section, I would recommend removing the phrase "(/ɪˌkaɪnoʊˈdɜːrmətə/; from Ancient Greek ἐχῖνος (ekhînos) 'hedgehog', and δέρμα (dérma) 'skin')" because it really breaks up the lead sentence. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't see that removing the etymology altogether is an improvement! Moved it to taxonomy.
  • Great, this section is now a pass. Mover of molehills (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

For a natural sciences article, this is an automatic pass. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stable[edit]

  • From looking at the page history, it does seem like there has been a good deal of recent vandalism. Does it seem reasonable to semi-protect it to keep it more stable? Mover of molehills (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it was marginal - three unconstructive editors since March, but feel free to do it if you think it'll help. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't see the timeline. I suppose that this article has enough eyes on it to where we don't need to worry much about a bad edit per month. Mover of molehills (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section is a pass as well! Mover of molehills (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated[edit]

  • I think the file "File:Water vascular system of a young starfish.jpg" might be a better bet than the one you currently have for the subsection on the vascular system. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting, but the current one shows the ampullae, and it also shows how everything is connected, which the other drawing is a bit vague about. I think we'd best stick with the one we've got for the moment. There may well be CC-by-SA drawings out there that are better but I've not seen them yet.
  • Fair enough.
  • My one other comment here is that there is a big gap in the article filled with nothing but text in the "Reproduction" section. My general philosophy is that we should avoid long stretches of text-heavy content if there are good images that can illustrate what we are talking about. In particular, "File:Comet form of Linckia.png" seems like it could be a good fit for the "asexual reproduction" section - what do you think? Mover of molehills (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're not obliged, but the image supports the text so why not. Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section is now very solid! Mover of molehills (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict[edit]

  • Promoted. Great work on this one. A very important topic, and I think that the article has developed a lot as a result of this exhaustive round of edits. Mover of molehills (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Echinoderm/GA1&oldid=1144253990"