Talk:Jellyfish/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Cygnis insignis (talk · contribs) 15:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer's opening statement[edit]

I'm opening a review of this article and mentioned this to the co-nominators, they have agreed to my first attempt at this. An important subject, the page is already useful, interesting and there are substantial contributions. I've read through three times, and see some areas for improvement, but generally think the page is able to satisfy the six criteria in a reasonable time-frame.

The first thing I want to ask contributors is the scope of the article, though it is obvious in some senses, some ways it might be used by readers. If I can get a feel for the article's criteria for inclusion, for example, I can see how that accords with GA criteria and what I know about content, guidelines and policy. — cygnis insignis 15:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a good point. Wikipedia has some taxa under their scientific name and some under their common name, and the two do not necessarily line up. In this instance, the first sentence sums up what we are trying to cover "A jellyfish is the informal common name given to the medusa-phase of certain gelatinous members of the subphylum Medusozoa, a major part of the phylum Cnidaria." The article Medusozoa and the articles for the included groups can deal with those groups more fully. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good, then we are probably in accord on what it can and can't do. The lead worked for me, and providing access (navigation) to deeper or more specific topics is one important function of an article under a common name. A pitfall of similar articles can be the accumulation of contributions, jellyfishy facts, but there seems to be a lot of thought put into coherent organisation, discretion, and thresholds of notability in this case. — cygnis insignis 12:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Query on protocol: a tool showed there was a substantial contributor and custodian of the article who doesn't seem active, should I alert them anyway? — cygnis insignis 12:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any editors actively "looking after" the article they must be aware of our activities and presumably this GA nomination. I have never felt it necessary to alert such editors but they are welcome to contribute to the review if they wish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding one point, they would not be aware of discussion on a GA subpage unless they watch it. I can't remember the last time I had to click 'watch' and forgot it was not automatic, because of this quirk it may be desirable to notify interested users and projects. cygnis insignis 15:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Items[edit]

done

"… a symbiotic relationship with ten different specifish" error, widowed adjective or portmanteau?

Corrected. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is generally fine, but another look at what applies to 'jellyfish' as a group and the results of studies of one or several species. eg. When a BBC science story uses the term, I see a claim to notability for inclusion here, though it should link back to the source and out to expansive discussion in the ~~specifish~~ [specific 'jellyfish'] articles.

I think it was an error and I have corrected it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I struck my attempt at levity as unhelpful, because I now don't know what you corrected. cygnis insignis 11:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Jellyfish are the most energy efficient swimmers of all animals." 'extraordinary claim', so some qualification is needed. I read into this line of enquiry and thought the copy here may have overstepped what was claimed in the refs, but see there is serious efforts to exploit the discovery for technological innovation. As above, locomotion section could mention the taxa in study.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Immortality discussion. Better secondary source or more caution. [As with other biota labelled as immortals and methuselahs, the details rest on definitions of individual.]

Or the definition of immortality. I have commented out the bit about humans. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The note to sea jellies at the beginning of lead. The ref is cute, and could perhaps be worked into etymology instead. The other name, jellies, should that be mentioned at outset? Finding other references for decisions about common names would be challenging.

We haven't got an etymology section at the moment. I could add a source like this one to the lead, or we could leave it as being a well-known fact not needing a reference. Actually, in the UK I have only heard "jellyfish" used and I imagined that "jellies" was an Americanism, however I see that the Smithsonian mentions "jellies" but gives precedence to "jellyfish". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A section like that could be tedious to compose, and the value questionable, but I tend to expand on names in a section to keep it out of the lead. Refs in lead sections are often symptoms of deficiencies in the body text. Not seeing a problem here though, and will leave it to your discretion. cygnis insignis 11:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and don't need to create the section, already there: Jellyfish#Etymology cygnis insignis 16:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have done that. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I though[t] there was some value in reviewing how The Library of Congress subject heading: Jellyfishes is classified when I looked at the wikidata item.

Well, I looked at that page before but could not think of any way to use it. One of the "sources" mentioned was a Dec. 28, 2010 version of the Wikipedia article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really an actionable item, pardon that, though it is helpful to see how major catalogues fit this term into their systems as a constraint on the scope of this page. cygnis insignis 14:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"An unusual species, Turritopsis dohrnii, formerly classified as T. nutricula, …" unclear when abbreviated (without viewing link)

This one is correct, as it's the second mention of Turritopsis in the same sentence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is ambiguous. I can explain when to abbreviate the genus if you are unsure. cygnis insignis 16:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have it your way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We all wish for that :) This is a matter of clarity and accepted style. cygnis insignis 16:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The change has already been made. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

pending

The "paraphyletic group" template should be [removed or] replaced with an infobox. [amended]

Are you referring to the taxobox at top right? I'm not sure what such an infobox would look like. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, top right, though it is not a taxobox. The resemblance is intentional, that is one of my concerns. There is an infobox example at Whale with rather awkward wording, but less misleading. cygnis insignis 21:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: Do you have any views on this? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is more a matter of policy than anything for GA (it's no part of the 6 criteria). Whale's pseudo-taxobox isn't a pretty example to follow. Personally I'd rather either leave it as it is, or do without altogether. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the option to remove it has been struck, without explanation; we don't have to agree to that, but let's see if we can make this work. I've set up a simple infobox that makes clear this isn't a taxon. It's plain and truthful, and these may be useful virtues here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this reply and thought I was waiting for it, apologies for that. The scope of the article has come to include content that ought to [be] elsewhere, a situation that is [the] result of the way redirects were pointed [away from] articles defined by biological taxons. What you have done is appropriate, and better redefines the scope: it follows that much of content belongs in articles on taxons. It would be a shame to sully the austere beauty of Medusozoa, but that seems the obvious target, and it avoids a lot of laboured qualification about whether a characteristic or fact refers to 'jellyfish'. Whale had what was a pseudo-taxobox, so did this, the infoboxes are about the intersect of a common name with another taxonomy. I haven't struck the option to remove any sort of box, I inserted that option when you mentioned it and I realised I had forgotten to include it,—ie. [insertion] ~~removal~~—the editorial comment (explanation) was "[amended]" (ie. added) — cygnis insignis 07:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC) [some missing words] — 13:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think the taxonomy and phylogenetic tree (with red bar) are necessary to define the scope of the article. Beyond that, the account of jellyfish anatomy, behaviour, etc seems basically appropriate to this article. What are you thinking should be moved to taxon articles? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the descriptor of that tree is, syllogistic? This article is listed under GA/biology, and marked as highest importance by projects that use accepted names, yet apart from the ref to the 'bewildered' scientist's discussion about jellies that was given in a note at the beginning there is nothing to suggest the common name 'jellyfish' has a meaningful correspondence with biological taxonomy. The scope can only be organisms that might be called 'jellyfish', not imply it is a clade to brace up a licensed premise. — cygnis insignis 13:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the section (and the tree) explicitly state it is not a clade, and show exactly why that is. On the application of the name jellyfish to various groups such as Scyphozoa/true jellyfish, the section explicitly gives the correspondence of Latin and English names, and provides citations in the text and in the table. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The approach is not supported by the sources, and even in a [non-systematic] taxonomy the term becomes incoherent. The intersect includes and excludes that might be labelled 'Jellyfish'. The common name is not a lot of other things too, to emphasise the point, so how is this even notable. cygnis insignis 06:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended the tree and the text to explain that "jellyfish" is not a clade, and is defined differently by different authorities. I have indicated the groups that have reliably been called "jellyfish" by at least one authority in boldface, supported by citations in each case. I hope this resolves your objection. The tree is a conventional phylogeny (i.e. of clades), overlaid with "jellyfish" labels, which can be seen to be scattered somewhat arbitrarily with respect to the phylogeny. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know, I need to remember to watch articles I have not edited (a feature of sub-paged discussions). The first thing I noticed was a ref name error was thrown up, multiple definitions or a bit of lint (I don't know because I didn't look at the code because I'm not editing the article). cygnis insignis 15:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, fixed. Actually, reviewers are welcome to fix minor errors that they find, it's often far more efficient than trying to direct editors' attention to exactly the right spot. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems sensible, it is my first impulse. Don't be shy to revert me if I boldly break something, or change the intention. cygnis insignis 16:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cygnis insignis: the fixes made in response to Snjón's 'On phylogeny' comments below have updated and simplified both the Taxonomy and the Phylogeny sections. These changes should put to rest your discomfort with these sections. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My response would be very similar to the concerns I have already outlined, and I am very reluctant to link policies, guidelines and criteria in discussions with established users.

And again, your second statement is problematic: 'my discomfort'… . Though it's understandable when users have a lot of investment in content, please desist from making implications. I will remove any clear incivility from further discussion. —cygnis insignis

Cygnis insignis: Nothing like that was implied by the descriptor, simply that in my view the matter you raised had been put to bed. I am sorry both that you felt it was uncivil, and that your concerns have in your view not been addressed. Further, since you mention possible incivility, "a lot of investment in content" is a phrase certainly capable of being interpreted as having "implications"; we have not taken offence at that, but other editors easily might have. Since we have, through Snjón's unsolicited intervention, actually had a second opinion from an experienced biology editor, and since the article now reflects Snjón's recommendations in full, I should have thought it appropriate for you now to give way on whatever may remain of your concerns.

I do not understand your "My response would be very similar", given that the Taxonomy and Phylogeny sections that you raised the concerns about are now very different, and compliant with independent third-party opinion.

I have however read through what you wrote again, and have rearranged the material as a 'Mapping to taxonomic groups' to make it clear that that is the intention, i.e. to describe the position for an informal but widely recognised grouping; the sub-headings like 'Non-medusozoa sometimes called jellyfish' already in use reinforce that message. If lack of clarity about that mapping from informal to formal was your concern, then this change should allay it.

As for your "very reluctant", it would be best if you explicitly identified the exact GA criterion you are talking about in any review item like this one, so that we can see what if anything remains to make the article compliant with that criterion. At risk of repeating myself, I believe that the taxonomy and phylogeny sections are now fully compliant with all six criteria. Well written? we think so. Verifiable: yes. Covering the topics: yes. Neutral: surely. Stable: changed only in response to review comments. Illustrated: yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a) Impolitely or not, I acknowledged you have a substantial investment in this 'living thing (in culture)' article, that excuses some abrupt or impatient responses. You are also a more experienced reviewer, at GA anyway, but I see no evidence this is not an article with substantial amounts of original synthesis, so my assessment according to the GA criteria would be very different. The first element, the infobox, no longer contains a linked assertion to 'scientific classification', that is a great help to someone attempting to read the page and understand the scope.

There is no original research, or indeed synthesis, in the article; all claims are cited to reliable sources, and there is no editorialising. On what appears to be your key question of what a jellyfish is, reliable sources are used throughout and all the opinions given are fully attributable to them. There is in fact very substantial agreement on the question among the cited authorities, with some looseness around the edges of the concept (salps, comb jellies) as is the case with pretty much all concepts, but none of that is down to the editors. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

b) Consider, as a reviewer, how you might regard a similar treatment of potential articles in pages like Simulacraceae (a redirect) or Blackbutt (disambig and incomplete SIA). As a title, jellyfish could function as they currently do, directing readers to content at another page, as it does at Jellyfish (disambiguation). As for the unsolicited view 'on phylogeny', I think I recognise that rationale from a wiki discussion that determined that while Aves are assigned to Reptilia, birds are not reptiles and that fact must be expurgated from wikipedia articles. General readers and seven year olds would be fairly confused by that classification, because it is wrong. This page title is a vague common name that may refer to accepted descriptions, circumscriptions, clades, classifications and living things that foul ship's engines and swimming beaches. cygnis insignis 03:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is Wikipedia policy and tradition to have articles on commonly recognised types of animal, which Jellyfish certainly is, and many such articles (e.g. Whale) are Good Articles, living alongside articles on the roughly-corresponding clades (e.g. Cetacea). Cwmhiraeth and I have edited many hundreds of Good Articles, including numerous animal groups, some of them like Wasp again living alongside the nearest clade, Apocrita. Frankly, readers expect to be able to find detailed coverage of major topics, rather than being redirected.

What we need now is to reach consensus, which isn't happening through general discussion such as that above. If you could please give us directly-actionable comments, each directly on one of the six GA criteria, like 'Please wikilink "Hydrozoa" in the section "..."', then we'll get there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am in general agreement with Chiswick Chap. For the general reader who wants to know a bit more about jellyfish, this page should serve. For the specialist reader there are Scyphozoa, Medusozoa and other articles. Since the scope of this article seems to be the problem, perhaps this review should be concluded; if you think the article meets the GA criteria you can pass it or if you think it does not, you can fail it, specifying which criteria it does not meet. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cygnis insignis: The middle course is to accept the definition and mapping, which is well supported by the sources, and to make any further comments on the six criteria so we can close them out and reach consensus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Well, it is Wikipedia policy and tradition to have articles on commonly recognised types of animal, which Jellyfish certainly is, and many such articles (e.g. Whale) are Good Articles, living alongside articles on the roughly-corresponding clades (e.g. Cetacea)."

It is clear this is an individual's point of view, not a neutral one, incidental mentions of a common name in journals, news outlets, and the humorous blog is synthesis. This article's scope is not defined by sources, the surprising evidence is that an experienced editor is seeking and interpreting sources to bolster a fork from accepted classifications, to produce another pseudo-biological article for 'general readers' in the "commonly recognised types" taxonomy detailed in the template and article named "Living things in culture" (which I will re-review). The relevant criterion is NPOV, any other evaluation of content (some good) is moot when then scope is whatever one interprets it to be, I don't know what policy Chiswick Chap thinks supports a parallel set of articles, or what 'tradition' they are following, and remain deeply sceptical there is a basis other than 'somebody else did it'. I have been directed to accept a middle ground, by this editor, co-contributor (and a GA reviewer), but I intend to fail this article and open up the can of worms. cygnis insignis 08:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

Why is there a subheading "Medusa" in the Anatomy section if all the text is under that one subheading? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I will try again: Cygnis insignis, I am a bit perplexed by this review. It does not seem as if you are reviewing whether the article meets the six GA criteria. If there are problems with meeting the criteria, please advise and we will be happy to fix them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And my apologies, I recognise that GA reviews are usually a tweaking process. IMO, the policy concerns underpin the application of criteria, they are linked in the guidance and definition. Obviously they can't be ignored, but I believe there is a very good and useful article amongst the content that is miscast or displaced, eg. the paraphylectic taxobox (now improved). Similar content is being discussed with the other contributor, so my part in that is holding up the review; apologies for that too. All this is simple and fixable, though a GA reviewer of similar articles could be called for an opinion (or take over the review). cygnis insignis 05:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On phylogeny[edit]

The current cladogram presented in the Phylogeny section is outdated (implicating the Taxonomy section as well), with statements in text, mainly that both Anthozoa and Scyphozoa are not monophyletic, contradicted by subsequent research^[1]^[2]. Other clades have also been negligibly reassembled, here's a slightly altered cladogram from the second reference:

Anthozoa

Octocorallia

	Ceriantharia

	Hexacorallia

	Polypodiozoa

	Myxozoa

Medusozoa

Acraspeda

Staurozoa

Rhopaliophora

Cubozoa

Scyphozoa

	Discomedusae

	Coronatae

Hydrozoa

Aplanulata

Siphonophorae

	Leptothecata

	Filifera

	Limnomedusae

	Narcomedusae

Used, thank you. A most helpful suggestion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current form of the supposed phylogenetic tree might raise some doubts about the structure and even usefulness of this section, as by the inclusion of tunicates and ctenophores. Such changes alter the (initial?) intended purpose, that of where do jellyfish fall on a phylogenetic tree of the Cnidaria. General readers will not intuitively understand the differences between a phylogenetic tree and a cladogram, likely inferring incorrect monophyletic relationships from whatever is presented; a reading that can nevertheless be pre-empted in text. Some confusion might be further generated due to the structure of the rest of the article, i.e. as cnidarian-oriented, and specifically medusozoan - which is stated in the very first sentence of the lead. The inclusion of said groups can perhaps be arranged as jellies and salps relative to both jellyfish dispersed within Cnidaria and to other animals in a broader scale, with a second simplified cladogram of the kind:

Animalia

Porifera

Ctenophora (comb jellies)

Cnidaria (includes jellyfish and jellies)

Bilateria

Protostomia

Deuterostomia

Ambulacraria

Chordata

	Tunicata (includes salps)

	Vertebrata

Part of the point being that these animals are neither jellyfish (nor medusozoans, nor cnidarians - at all) nor will they be further mentioned in the article. Inherent ambiguity in these terms cannot be avoided, but it ought to be manageable if this article is to pedal towards the desired status. I hope this is useful. Snjón (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it will be simpler to split the trees. I've done that now. And updated the Medusozoa. The result is clearer and simpler, and more up to date, so it's better all round. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Zapata, Felipe; Goetz, Freya E; Smith, Stephen A; Howison, Mark; Siebert, Stefan; Church, Samuel H; Sanders, Steven M; Ames, Cheryl Lewis; McFadden, Catherine S; France, Scott C; Daly, Marymegan; Collins, Allen G; Haddock, Steven H. D; Dunn, Casey W; Cartwright, Paulyn (2015). "Phylogenomic Analyses Support Traditional Relationships within Cnidaria". PLOS ONE. 10 (10): e0139068. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139068. PMC 4605497. PMID 26465609.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
^ Kayal, Ehsan; Bentlage, Bastian; Sabrina Pankey, M; Ohdera, Aki H; Medina, Monica; Plachetzki, David C; Collins, Allen G; Ryan, Joseph F (2018). "Phylogenomics provides a robust topology of the major cnidarian lineages and insights on the origins of key organismal traits". Bmc Evolutionary Biology. 18. doi:10.1186/s12862-018-1142-0.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

[1] Zapata, Felipe; Goetz, Freya E; Smith, Stephen A; Howison, Mark; Siebert, Stefan; Church, Samuel H; Sanders, Steven M; Ames, Cheryl Lewis; McFadden, Catherine S; France, Scott C; Daly, Marymegan; Collins, Allen G; Haddock, Steven H. D; Dunn, Casey W; Cartwright, Paulyn (2015). "Phylogenomic Analyses Support Traditional Relationships within Cnidaria". PLOS ONE. 10 (10): e0139068. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139068. PMC 4605497. PMID 26465609.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

[2] Kayal, Ehsan; Bentlage, Bastian; Sabrina Pankey, M; Ohdera, Aki H; Medina, Monica; Plachetzki, David C; Collins, Allen G; Ryan, Joseph F (2018). "Phylogenomics provides a robust topology of the major cnidarian lineages and insights on the origins of key organismal traits". Bmc Evolutionary Biology. 18. doi:10.1186/s12862-018-1142-0.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

[1]

[2]