Talk:Cafileria/GA1

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, I am on the process of fixing most of the points here. However I'm having difficulty modifying the "Flagellar apparatus" section. I understand that part of the issue is that the article bicosoecid says nothing about the flagellar apparatus that is common in bicosoecids, but this is not an issue of Cafileria, it is an issue of bicosoecid. I gathered from the sources that the flagellar apparatus is the main difference between this organism and any other related organisms, so I don't think I should entirely erase the detailed description.
 * Well it might be wise to strengthen the other article to lend support to this one. I've already proposed a wording below so I'm not sure what else you'd expect a reviewer to do really; the obvious thing to do is to use my wording if in doubt, and to seek more sources if you feel you need them.
 * Another issue is with the "Genetic characteristics". The concept of a "type 4 genetic code" is explained in the same phrase: with a UGA codon that codes for the aminoacid tryptophan and UAA/UAG as stop codons. This is to help the reader understand that the genetic code is also unusual in this organism. I don't think I should erase this phrase, but I would like to know how to write it in a more digestible way. ☽ Snoteleks  ☾ 15:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: I have found a wikilink to be used for the genetic code "type 4" mention. ☽ Snoteleks  ☾ 15:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Noted. It doesn't remove the need for explanation, though perhaps it provides the basis for one. I suggest you say that the code is unusual but found across various Bacterial and Eukaryote groups (give a brief list so readers can see that parts of 2 Domains are involved). By the way, I get the feeling you were waiting for me to put the review on hold - that's actually a backstop for nominators who don't seem to be taking any action on review comments (the next step being fail), so next time, don't wait.......
 * @Chiswick Chap To be honest that last comment you made feels like a threat. If I "wait" next time or any time at all, it's because I have a life of my own outside of Wikipedia and it tends to take priority, especially near the end of my science degree. I don't follow any schedule, because I do this purely for my own leisure without any profit incentive, not to obey anyone else's schedule. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop implying that I am required to do these things or even that I "ignore" them on purpose. By default I already take into account every single comment and criticism I get in order to do better, but Wikipedia is still not my job. Any negative repercussions over any person taking a bit more time to respond make no sense to exist. Please respect this and thank you. ☽ Snoteleks  ☾ 07:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm just describing the process; if you are busy IRL the correct approach is to put in a one-line note that you will be available in x days' time and the article will be put on hold until then: that's far better than silence, which obviously provides no useful information, and unfortunately often indicates that the nominator has ceased editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that. I didn't think of that possibility. I agree it is better than silence so next time (if I can) I will notify if I'm not available. On another note, I think I fulfilled all of the review comments. Can you take a look? ☽ Snoteleks  ☾ 08:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. Again, the convention, which is practical and convenient, is for nom to reply briefly to each comment so the reviewer can see what to check, or in the case of a comment which says no, this hasn't been done because, what not to check but to sign off the comment anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry. I'll do that next time. I didn't know there was a convention for that. ☽ Snoteleks  ☾ 08:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments
This is a well-rounded and well-cited article, given the rather limited scientific knowledge of this group.


 * "the chemical plant where the biomass...": a kafilerie is "a rendering plant where biomass..." (get rid of both definite articles, different wikilink) in English.


 * "to exchange ATP/ADP" -> "to the need to exchange ATP/ADP"


 * "mRNA that would be translated" -> "mRNA to be translated"


 * "Flagella" should be linked at 1st instance, not 2nd.


 * "two flagella (anterior and posterior), also smooth" --- the last remark will make no sense to nearly all readers. Suggest you mention that the Stramenopiles characteristically have hairs on their flagella.


 * You mention "cisternae" without gloss or wikilink.


 * The "Flagellar apparatus" section suddenly dives into extreme technicality (even for editors trained in Biology). It spends a lot of time on the microanatomy of the roots, with no explanation of why these things might matter. I'd be inclined to drop all four of the bulleted paragraphs as telling nothing useful (or even comprehensible) to the average Wikipedia reader. The remaining material is still very dry and technical, and needs to be reworded, as almost every phrase presents challenges. It would help to begin with . "typical in bicosoecid cells" doesn't help much as the linked article says nothing about the peculiarities of the group's flagella. I think we need to say very little more in the section than:


 * "C. marina has its two flagella attached to four roots made of microtubules. There are two basal bodies, in the anterior (front) part of the cell, at a 45° angle to each other. The flagella each have an axoneme structure with two central microtubules and a circle of nine microtubules around them. The four roots have 8, 3, 1, and 1 microtubules respectively, an arrangement unique to C. marina."


 * The "Genetic characteristics" section is comprehensible to biologists but I suggest it will say very little to the ordinary reader. Why should we go into molecular detail? What are we trying to say? What is a "type 4" genetic code, and why should the ordinary reader care? Why are we going into intron groups? If the goal is to say


 * "C. marina mitochondrial genome is unusual in having a very low content of cytosine-guanine pairs compared to other stramenopiles, and no group I or group II introns as are typical of other mitochondria."


 * then we should say something like that, but it's still pretty abstruse, as it leaves unanswered the obvious questions "What does it mean and why does it matter?" The second paragraph is at least as obscure; if it says anything worth mentioning at all, it is perhaps "The genes of C. marina are highly rearranged compared to other stramenopiles." though again, what the reader wants to know is "so, what does that imply?". I think the rest of the material is probably best omitted.


 * A simple cladogram to show the phylo-context would be useful, even (or preferably) if it was very small and simple, something like this:


 * I note that the position of Cafileria within Bikosea is vague. You might consider providing a pair of cladograms to explain the alternative hypotheses visually, as they cannot be understood from the existing text (for example, the reader has no idea where Caecitellus or Anoecales lie within the group, so position relative to them doesn't help any).

Summary
Super, that's all covered. Nice cladograms, too! A worthy GA. There is no quid pro quo in the GA process, but if you feel like picking an article or two from the GAN list, it'd be much appreciated by everyone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)