Talk:Black coral/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Really interesting topic, happy to take this :) I will post my comments in a week. Cheers, Sainsf  ·  (How ya doin'?)  13:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool! Thanks! Aven13 00:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, so I went through the earlier detailed GA review of this article, and I appreciate your efforts in addressing those issues and renominating this. I haven't read this completely, but I will keep adding comments as I notice points that should be discussed. Cheers, Sainsf  ·  (How ya doin'?)  01:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

✅. ✅.
 * General checks
 * No copyvio and dablink issues
 * This external link is forbidden
 * A few duplinks. You can use this tool to view them, link the terms only on their first mention.
 * Sourcing and citations:
 * The first ref is a mess. It should use Template:Cite WoRMS as suggested in the previous review

✅. (By someone else, admittedly.)
 * Volume number should be in bold in ref 29. Ideally you should use cite templates for ease and consistency.

✅. (By a bot.)
 * I don't see what purpose ref 32 serves

✅. Removed.
 * allowing them to catch nearly the same amount of animals without wasting energy keeping unnecessary polyps alive.  Lacks inline citations
 * Though there are reports of parrotfish ... is gnawed off, it will not affect the coral. Not sure ref 15 supports the line earlier or the parrotfish point given its placement, what all does ref 6 support? Similar doubts for  invertebrates such as muricids and ovulids[6] 
 * ✅ Citations fixed for that section.
 * A large 1.8 meter (6 ft) tall coral tree is somewhere between 30 and 40 years old.  Lacks inline citations
 * Lots of discrepancies in the formatting of scientific names, see refs 3 and 6 for examples. Needs an extensive check throughout the article, as there are some instances I found in the main text too
 * I fixed all of the scientific names inside of the article, but aren't the capitalizations in the citations just the titles of the articles?
 * Look at the scientific names in refs 5, 8, 10, 12. There are errors in capitalization and italicization. I have not checked the refs after that.
 * I know that I'm probably missing something (I haven't really looked at this before) but those are just the copy-and-pasted titles of all the articles. If they didn't italicize correctly, do I need to change the article title to fix it? Sorry about this being so difficult for me.
 * When we copy titles from sources it is our job to fix their formatting so yeah, we have work to do even after a copy-paste. Sainsf  (t · c)  04:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, think I got everything. Italicized the names of specific corals, capitalized everything else. Aven13 11:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I don't see the required changes. See ref 2. Parantipathes larix should be in italics. Many more such problems. Case errors in ref 9. Are you sure you understand what I mean? Sainsf  (t · c)  17:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I was dumb and undid my own edit with the revisions. I think I fixed them now.
 * It would be better not to include domain names in website names, like writing "reefs.com" as "Reefs" instead.
 * Fix the initials in refs like 20 per MOS:INITIALS
 * ❌ All done except for ref 20. I've tried everything and it always just breaks the citation. I don't know how to fix the citation for the vauthors template.
 * I have changed those parameters to author1, author2 ... instead, looks ok now. Sainsf  (t · c)  16:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As a general note, it is recommended to use just years or month+year consistently throughout all journal citations. There are many other things you can bring consistency into like page number formats (136-137 vs 136-7), but this is not needed for GAs. However you do need to fix the dates in all citations so that they are in words and not numbers like ref 21
 * ❌ All done except for ref 20. I've tried everything and it always just breaks the citation. I don't know how to fix the citation for the vauthors template.
 * I have changed those parameters to author1, author2 ... instead, looks ok now. Sainsf  (t · c)  16:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As a general note, it is recommended to use just years or month+year consistently throughout all journal citations. There are many other things you can bring consistency into like page number formats (136-137 vs 136-7), but this is not needed for GAs. However you do need to fix the dates in all citations so that they are in words and not numbers like ref 21


 * Prose and coverage

Lead and infobox
✅. ✅. ✅. Sorry about that. ✅. ✅. ✅. ✅. Aven13 20:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC) ✅.
 * (the part of coral that is alive) "the" before coral
 * 50 m (164.0 ft) I think the unnecessary zero after the decimal point can be removed by setting the sigfig parameter in the template to 3.
 * It reproduces both sexually and asexually throughout its lifetime Doesn't match with the plural used in the previous and following lines. If you wish to change the number then you should say "The coral reproduces..." instead of using a pronoun, though I think using singular here is not really right as we are talking about a broad group.
 * Black corals were originally classified in the subclass Ceriantipatharia along with ceriantharians I see ceriantharians are commonly known as "tube-dwelling anemones". This can be added in brackets for easy recognition.
 * as medical treatment Not sure but isn't it usually "for" instead of "as"?
 * poor-quality specimens "specimens" may be linked to zoological specimen
 * Link corals on first mention in the main body (after lead)
 * In the infobox families shouldn't be in italics

Classification and taxonomy

 * May be the title words should be swapped as taxonomic details are discussed before classification
 * I'm sorry, what do you mean by this?
 * My bad, I meant the section heading should probably be "Taxonomy and classification" as taxonomic details are discussed before classification. Sainsf  (t · c)  12:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

✅. ✅ Added.
 * The order name should start with "A", except where it is "antipatharians".
 * When black corals were first documented Do we know when that was, and who documented them?
 * May be I don't like redlinks that can be avoided in an article, but do we really need to link Opresko and Molodtsova? At any rate we need to introduce them (like what are their professions, or what institute or organization they belong to?) to give them some background.
 * Well, they're just two ordinary researchers. Molodtsova is a researcher in Moscow, and Opresko works at the smithsonian. I've added that they are marine biologists, but if you need more, let me know.
 * No, this looks good enough. ✅ Sainsf  (t · c)  12:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

✅ added that they helped to revise the older one. ✅ Sorry, my bad. They documented the new species from 2001-2006. I don't know where I got the old number. ✅, but unfortunately, I couldn't find any good photos of the skeletal spines on the commons. ✅. ✅. ✅ so I added the sentence to the human uses section, as well as adding the word in the malay language ✅. ✅ it should be et al, but the period should be there. ✅.
 * In 2015, Dennis Opresko and Tina Molodtsova helped to implement the current taxonomic system I am curious.. how exactly did they help? Did they create the system, or revise an earlier one?
 * This has been confirmed by the use of genetic testing The event mentioned earlier is from 2015, and the study that confirms it is from 2007? Sounds odd. Also we can rephrase this better if we say "A 2007 phylogenetic study confirmed ..."
 * Link chitin and polyp. Can you find a good one for the skeletal spines?
 * chitin skeleton, small or medium-sized polyps, and small spines along the skeleton can be shortened to "small or medium-sized polyps and chitin skeleton lined with small spines" (unless I changed the meaning by mistake)
 * The root of the word antipatharia, antipathes, is the Ancient Greek word for "against disease" can be shortened to "The name Antipatharia comes from the Ancient Greek antipathes ('against disease')."
 * In the Hawaiian language, black coral is called ʻēkaha kū moana ("hard bush growing in the sea") and is the official state gem of Hawaii. I see the name is relevant, but so might be names in other languages. Plus the state gem fact doesn't seem to fit in taxonomy though etymology can. May be we can add a cultural significance section in the article where we discuss the relevance of black corals in human culture and society? Just an idea you can consider, I am yet to read what is already there in the article on interaction with humans.
 * In the image alongside the caption should say "wire-coral goby" (no caps)
 * Bo & al., 2009 Shouldn't it be et al without a period?
 * "Etymology" should ideally be a separate section before Taxonomy. Sainsf  (t · c)  12:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Anatomy
✅. ✅ ✅. ✅ ✅
 * Wouldn't Physical characteristics be a better name for the section? As we deal with the anatomy plus external features and measurements?
 * Despite its name, black coral "a" black coral
 * unique to black coral corals
 * in many patterns unique to black coral, such as whip, tree, fan, or coil shaped skeletons maybe we can just say "in many patterns unique to black coral such as whips, trees, fans, or coils"?
 * These range in size from 10 centimeters to 3 meters "These range from 10 to 300 cm in size" (you can also use m→ft conversion but I think a lower scale is better). Abbreviation is not necessary but makes things less wordy, just do so consistently. Make sure to use convert templates throughout the article wherever you have measurements
 * This issue has not been resolved, you need to use convert templates consistently throughout the article. Sainsf  (t · c)  12:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅I'm sorry, I don't know what I was thinking.

✅ I've created a small etymology subsection underneath taxonomy. ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ (Mostly, I thought that "Inside this bark, less than 2 mm" could confuse the reader into think we were talking about the bark.) ✅ ✅. All that's done for now. Aven13 12:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The name 'thorn coral' comes from the tiny spikes that are visible on the skeletons of most black corals With so much discussion on names (Antipatharia, black coral and now this one) we can make a nice Etymology section to collect these in one place. Also you can just say "most individuals" instead of "most black corals" for a change
 * triangular shape that can vary widely How does a triangle vary?
 * A layer of "bark" will form around the coral skeleton as it grows I feel the tense may not suit here, let's say "forms" instead. Also "around the skeleton as the coral grows" sounds better.
 * Remove the polyp link here and use it on first mention in the main text (I think I said it in a point above so this one will actually have become a duplink).
 * live inside of this bark "of" is redundant
 * The polyps that live inside of this bark are less than 2 mm [11] and gelatinous and have six tentacles (unlike most other corals which have eight) Can rephrase as "The polyps that live inside this bark, less than 2 mm, are gelatinous and have six tentacles (unlike most other corals which have eight)".
 * Link hermaphroditic
 * These factors lead to sediment tearing the soft tissue of black corals and killing them Better rephrase as "These factors can lead to sediment tearing the soft tissue, resulting in death". Note that a frequent mention of "black corals" is not necessary.

I will let you work on this set of points for now, and I have divided them into subheadings for convenience. These are not major issues, they mostly deal with the way of presentation and in places with coverage. I really appreciate your work on this difficult article and so far it has been a pleasant read. Let me know your progress as you reply to the comments. Cheers :) Sainsf  ·  (How ya doin'?)  16:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Continuing (don't forget the two unresolved points above), Sainsf  (t · c)  17:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Ecology

 * Though black corals occur all throughout the oceans "all throughout" sounds more or less like "throughout" to me. "Throughout all the oceans" could give us more information if that is what you mean


 * Missed this point earlier, you should be consistent in calling them "black corals" (and not "antipatharians" except in Taxonomy) throughout the article.


 * The sole oceanic area in which antiptharians have not been found are brackish waters This is a contradiction to "all throughout" mentioned earlier and "existing at nearly every location and depth" in the lead.. the wording in Habitat should be altered and the lead should include the exception.


 * (organisms smaller than macrofauna but larger than microfauna) Not sure this explanation helps much, it presents two more similar new terms to a lay reader


 * continental slopes, cliffs, caves, or undersea plateaus We can have a few links here\


 * Polyp is a duplink in Diet


 * Link cnidarians


 * A short explanation of "oral disk" would help as it is a redlink
 * ✅ added that it functions as a mouth for the coral.


 * Though there are reports of parrotfish ... gnawed off, it will not affect the coral. Rephrase as "There are rare/few reports of parrotfish and butterflyfish gnawing and eating at the polyps of black corals, and even if a polyp is gnawed off, it will not affect the coral".


 * The skeleton of black coral is hard and inert "a black coral"


 * Though there have been reports of black coral...eaten by any vertebrates Conclusion made by whom? It may be infrequent but green sea turtles and sharks are evidently vertebrates that eat these corals, so "Not eaten by any" is surely erroneous. A good rephrase for more concise wording may be "Though black coral skeletons have been found in the stomachs of green sea turtles and sharks, these incidents are rare; it has thus been suggested that black corals are not eaten by any vertebrates".


 * Italicize the scientific names in the next para


 * Link mollusc


 * and the eat the tissue What does it mean, and what tissue?


 * Mimic can be linked to mimicry


 * of black coral, little is known about its life cycle corals, its→their


 * Why is leiopathid in italics in the caption?
 * ✅ fixed.


 * We know little about sexual reproduction in these corals "we know" is not encyclopedic, rather say "little is known" or "there is not much information about", whichever is less repetitive in the article


 * Add links for eggs, sperm, metamorphoses


 * It will then begin to bud, which will create new polyps, which will eventually form a colony "which will" is repetitive


 * Sexual reproduction occurs after 10 to 12 years 10-12 yrs of what?


 * The male to female polyp ration is 1:1 ratio?


 * You mean oocyte"s"?
 * It was redirected before, did you mean for me to fix that?


 * However, in March 2009, scientists ...the order of thousands of years" Wording needs improvement. More like "However, in March 2009 around 4,265 years old specimens of Leiopathes glaberrima were found at depths of nearly 300 to 3,000 m, making them some of the oldest living organisms on earth. The researchers showed that the "that individual colony longevities are on the order of thousands of years"".


 * they will grow too large It should be clear whether "they" refers to the old black corals just discussed or black corals in general


 * Once again italicize scientific names in next para


 * nearly 60% passed through the bed at some time I am not sure I understand this
 * ✅ just decided to get rid of it, as it wasn't really necessary.


 * was observed to be common "has been observed"
 * Not sure how this last paragraph fits into the "Life cycle and reproduction" section.
 * ✅ Yeah, I don't know why I had it there either. I made a new section called "interaction" but if there's a better name, please tell me.

Human use and harvesting

 * Many Indo-Pacific people You mean peoples if you refer to several communities?


 * black coral is not ideal "corals are not"


 * However, black coral is not ideal ...and break Should be connected to the preceding jewelry line. Also "coral" is repeated too often in this line


 * It can be determined if a sample is true black coral or not by boiling it in milk. This will cause true black coral to emit a faint smell of myrrh "a true black coral", again this phrase is repeated. Also these lines should be combined to reduce length


 * where harvesting has been conducted since "where they have been harvested since". I'm not sure if harvesting is "conducted", I have heard "harvesting is done" more often (see next line too)


 * Despite better management in Cozumel You mean "improvements in management"?


 * Though it is still possible to ...(CITES) I would see a contradiction if it were the other way round instead, that despite the listing purchase is allowed. Also, use the plural (corals) here

Threats

 * on the IUCN endangered species scale You mean the IUCN Red List?


 * under 50 cm "less than"


 * primary global threat to antipatharians primary threat "worldwide" would be less repetitive


 * black coral rarely builds "corals rarely build"


 * A Bathypathes species sounds better in the caption
 * Okay but I didn't mean you should remove the rest of the caption, which I have restored now. And I forgot to mention this.. I suggest moving the pic to the right as it squeezes the references section as it is now. Sainsf  (t · c)  16:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay but I didn't mean you should remove the rest of the caption, which I have restored now. And I forgot to mention this.. I suggest moving the pic to the right as it squeezes the references section as it is now. Sainsf  (t · c)  16:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

That should be it. A lot of work for a GA review, but hopefully we can sort this out in a week or maximum 10 days. Otherwise, if you are unable to manage time, it would be better to fail this and renominate when it is all done. Cheers, Sainsf  (t · c)  17:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think that's everything. One of the points above I wasn't sure about, but all grammar, prose, and inline citations have been done (except for the "scientific names" thing). Aven13 17:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Final checks
Okay so given the large number of points we have dealt with in this review, I thought of reading through the article once again to make sure everything looks fine now and no issue has been missed (including those raised in the previous review). I have made some edits here and there to improve the prose and formatting, please go through them to see what the problems were and check if I messed up anything. Here are my final comments: Sainsf  (t · c)  13:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * and are expected to continue continue doing what?
 * ✅ declining in number.


 * Black corals have many different names Before this a reader would be interested to know why they are called "black corals" in the first place. You can shift this Despite its name, a black coral... composed of protein and chitin from later in the article to here, just make sure it is not repeated in the article. Also, you say "many different" names but mention just one.
 * ✅ changed to "several". When I say many, I mean the names in other languages as well.


 * When I said "Can you find a good one for the skeletal spines?" I meant a good link for "spines" in lined with small spines
 * ❌ No, unfortunately. Since its a very minor thing that only appears on a few corals, there's no article for it.


 * What would be really helpful as images in the classification section are pics of representatives of different families with their names arranged in a nice vertical gallery (see Help:Pictures) alongside the list. As it is the one pic there does not really serve any role.
 * ✅! Great idea. I've had to re-use some photos (because there isn't a wealth of them), but I also found one showing the spines of the coral.
 * Well done, links should have been added and the capitalization should have been fixed which I have done now. You should remember that you shouldn't say just "black coral", it is like saying "fur of cat is smooth" instead of "fur of a/the cat is smooth". I like the skeleton comparison pic in Taxonomy, but it would look best if placed in Characteristics. The goby pic is not really adding much to the article I feel so you can remove it. Sainsf  (t · c)  04:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * as small as 1 millimeter in size Convert template


 * In the convert templates you can add a "|sigfig=" parameter and set it to 3, so that needlessly precise measurements like "2 mm (0.079 in)" can be fixed (to "0.08 in" here for example).


 * Link protein in Physical characteristics


 * Link salinity in Habitat. Currents can be linked to something like ocean currents if that is what you mean.


 * Why are muricids and ovulids italicized?
 * ✅. I don't know.


 * It then consume the polyps from the inside out You say "these mollusks" (plural) in the previous line


 * Link vertebrate, invertebrate and predation


 * Say either mollusk or mollusc consistently


 * it has thus been suggested that black corals are not eaten by any vertebrates I still don't understand how one can conclude that no vertebrate eats the corals just because such incidents are rare.
 * ✅ I changed the wording; "it has thus been suggested that black corals are not a major part of any vertebrate diets".


 * You don't need ref 8 after butterflyfish and ovulid if it covers the whole part (the whole 1st para and half of the 2nd para in Predators). As it is it seems refs 8 supports just butterflyfish and ovulids as examples, plus it doesn't look good to have refs mid-text (compared to after a comma or a period) unless necessary.


 * Link crustaceans, bivalves


 * Like my point under Threats (MOS:IMAGELOCATION), the parrotfish and leiopathid pics seem to be squashing the text a bit.
 * ✅ I moved them both to the right, and they don't seem to be squashing it as much anymore.
 * One of them was still a bit problematic so I fixed it using Template:Clear. Sainsf  (t · c)  04:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Any good link you can think of for "Indo-Pacific peoples"?
 * ✅ Although there are too many cultures for one page, I linked the geographic region.


 * It can be determined if a sample is true black coral or not by boiling it in milk, which will emit a faint smell of myrrh. Not worded well. Not clear when the myrrh smell comes, when it is a real coral or when it is not. Again, "a" true black coral
 * ✅ split it into two sentences, one about how it can be tested, and one about boiling it in milk.
 * Thanks, much better.. I combined them to form a single line. Sainsf  (t · c)  17:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Closing comments: I am happy with the changes made to the article, and I believe it meets all the GA criteria now. There still is a suggestion above about the skeleton image which would be good to implement but it is not mandatory for this to pass as GA. Thank you for all your hard work and congrats on your first natural history GA! Cheers, Sainsf  (t · c)  17:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)