Talk:Environmental DNA/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 19:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Few comments for a start, more later:
 * The lead should not have inline citations (because all info + references need to be repeated in the body in any case); removing them may also look less cluttered.
 * Some images appear very big compared to most other articles. I find it a bit problematic that under the section "Aquatic (water column)", three large images come together making it very cluttered with a lot of white space.
 * "Environmental RNA", empty heading? If this is a sub-topic of "Environmental DNA", then we need a summary of the most important information in this section. If it is not a sub-topic, but a sister topic, I think this section needs to be removed ("Sea also" would be a better place for it in that case).
 * Having inline citations in brackets "([27])" seems sub-standard and inconsistent.
 * I didn't read yet, but the article structure confuses me. Having an overview section is great. But for example, the sub-sections in "Monitoring species" appear quite random to me. Each sub-section seems to be highly specialised on a specific field (e.g., fisheries) when I would expect a general overview. And having "DNA from the air" under "Mammals" does not make sense to me; why should't it work on birds, for example? The title of the paper is: "Proof of concept that animal DNA can be collected from air sampling" – that they happen to use mammals seems not to be that relevant. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Lead: eDNA metabarcoding is a novel method – this doesn't really connect with the previous paragraph, and I found it difficult to follow. Better introduce "eDNA metabarcoding" for extra clarity?
 * Relating to above comment: known as metagenomics, metabarcoding, and single-species detection – As a reader, I am at a loss here; in the next paragraph, only metabarcoding is discussed, not metagenomics, and metabarcoding is linked twice but to separate articles, and the reader does not know why.
 * a novel method – we should avoid words such as "novel", because that would be outdated in a few years. When important, give the approximate date.
 * This method allows for biomonitoring without requiring collection of the living organism, creating the ability to study organisms that are invasive, elusive, or endangered without introducing anthropogenic stress on the organism. – Why shouldn't we introduce anthropogenic stress on an invasive species? That argument only seems to be valid for the endangered species? Or, asked the other way around: Why restrict to "invasive, elusive, or endangered" species? Instead I thought that assessment of overall biodiversity is one of the main goals?
 * The analysis of eDNA has great potential, not only for monitoring common species, but to genetically detect and identify other extant species that could influence conservation efforts. – So that means we mostly monitor common species with this method? This seems to be a small part of the picture only?
 * Importantly, eDNA is often more cost-effective compared to traditional sampling methods. – If we can avoid "importantly", we should, and this is a case where we easily can. I don't think it adds anything.
 * applied in many subenvironments such as freshwater sampling, seawater sampling – both are listed as "macro environments" in the previous sentence. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The "overview" section needs wiki links. Terms already linked in the lead should be linked again in the body.
 * eDNA can be captured from environmental samples and preserved, extracted – what is the difference betwwen "captured" and "extracted"?
 * sequenced, and categorized based on its sequence. – sequenced based on its sequence? What does this mean?
 * From this information, detection and classification of species is possible – do you mean "identification"? "Classification" is a huge step further.
 * skin, mucous, saliva, sperm, secretions, eggs, feces, urine, blood, roots, leaves, fruit, pollen – why do you list "hair" in the lead but not here?
 * age and feeding activity of the organism as well as physiology, life history – age and life history, isn't that the same? Not clear what you mean.
 * On hold: I am generally worried about Good Article criterium 1, "well written". The prose does not seems sufficiently clear and easy to follow, and the article structure might not be ideal. I hope the above examples may give an idea about what to look for. If anything is unclear, please let me know. I would suggest that I put the article on hold for now, to give you some time to improve overall readability of the article. Thanks, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

thank you for those thoughtful comments. I'll address these issues over the next few days. —Epipelagic (talk) 07:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Closing note: Failed GA per request by the author. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)