Talk:Gastrotrich/GA2

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


 * This article's opening paragraph alone contains errors of the level that should not be allowed in a Good Article.
 * "The gastrotrichs (commonly referred to as hairybacks) are members of the phylum Gastrotricha, a group of microscopic (0.06-3.0 mm), worm-like, pseudocoelomate animals, and are widely distributed and abundant in freshwater and marine environments.
 * This sentence is unclear. The gastrotrichs are the phylum Gatrotricha. This opening sentence implies that there are other non-gastrotrich members of the phylum. There are not.
 * This is not an error, it's just an ambiguity; I don't see it as nearly as problematic as you do. I have rephrased, following the way bird is phrased. J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Gastrotrichs are divided into two orders, the Macrodasyida which are all marine, and the Chaetonotida, some of which are marine and some freshwater."


 * The Macrodasyida are not "all marine." The editor credited with this Good Article review says that this information came from a textbook on invertebrate zoology, and "I regard the source I used, Invertebrate Zoology by Ruppert, Fox and Barnes, as an extremely reliable source. It did not emphasize the importance of the epicuticle or the uniqueness of the pharynx. I don't choose to waste my time seeking out evidence to contradict what a reliable source states. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)," and, so, ignored any scientific evidence that the mentioned clade is not all marine. Good Articles require WP:Verifiability and if a source disagrees with all other sources, the editor should not just state, "I consider this extremely reliable, so I'm ignoring everything else." That isn't Wikipedia policy. An editor must be able to realize or somehow deal with a source that disagrees with all other sources. Because this is a source used throughout the article, I think that its use must be questioned everywhere in the article and on Wikipedia.
 * Reliable sources sometimes disagree; that doesn't make them unreliable. The fact you're suggesting otherwise is laughable. You haven't actually provided a reliable source challenging the source used in this article, which would be step one. Until you do so, this is unactionable. J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the solution to this be to Google Macrodasyida freshwater or something like that? John lilburne (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've found a more recent source which specifies that two rare and poorly known Macrodasyida have been recorded from freshwater habitats. This hardly undermines the general accuracy of the source which claims that they're "all marine"- reliable sources sometimes make mistakes. In any case, this issue has now been corrected. J Milburn (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the textbook, and I don't have a strong interest in this article. That I don't have the time or inclination to fix it, does not make it a Good Article.
 * The article totally ignores the animal's epicuticle and other defining characteristics. As such, it is not complete. An organism is defined by what distinguishes it from other closely related organisms. To omit this is to fail to define the organism.
 * ''Source? What other "defining characteristics"? What other "closely related organisms"? Again, this is unactionable. J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

However, because of the high level of the errors in this article, its Good Article status should be removed. The basic environment of the two orders should be something that can be accurately sourced. If the article is written by an editor who did not review the literature at a level that allowed the inclusion of a very basic fact, it fails the criteria. If the article is mostly cited to two sources that disagree with each other, and the editor did not include these disagreements, but picked various factoids from one source or the other there are probably other major problems with the article.

--(AfadsBad (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC))


 * I have just noticed this GA reassessment and would like to help in any way possible. If you need details of what my "Invertebrate Zoology" source states I could quote them here, or even provide a photocopy of the five pages involved as an email attachment if that would help. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, here AfadsBad nitpicking is indeed excessive. If there are sources confirming that not all Macrodasyida are marine, however, these should be used and information amended.-- cyclopia speak! 14:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A recent source has been found saying that there are two species which are not marine. I have clarified this in the article. Especially considering the fact that those two species have each been observed only once, I don't think the claim that the Macrodasyida are all marine was as bad as was made out, especially as it was taken from a recent, strong source. J Milburn (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)