Wikipedia:Featured article review/Krill/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:09, 12 July 2010.

Review commentary

 * Notified: User talk:Lupo‎, User talk:Kils, User talk:Stemonitis, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arthropods. 

FA from 2005, has some 1c issues throughout and wholly unsourced subsections, and some copyediting needs and some short paragraphs/sections. 9 total images used in the article, could use a pass through of an image review for those. Subsections: There are short subsections, consisting of only one sentence or paragraph or so. Short paragraphs: There are short paragraphs, consisting of only one or two paragraphs in length. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Images reviewed. The only image which might be questionable as far as sourcing goes is File:Pleopods euphausia superba.jpg. This is only because it says the image is from User:Kils, but doesn't say whether he took the image himself or received it from another source. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 06:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The image was made by Uwe Kils, as stated on the image page. I noticed a couple of days ago that the source for this image had vanished. It appears that there was a purge of Kils' work at wikisource, and I cannot find it anymore in the logs. It was used here (deleted, too; but still partially visible in the Google cache (Google for "Kilsbiomass3.jpg")). Lupo 10:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to get upset as I was only stating what I perceived as a possible problem. Perhaps you can reword the text on that image page to make it more clear. I wasn't trying to cast aspersions on anyone. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 21:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not upset at all, just confused as to what happened with that image I had uploaded. Will add an information to that image. Lupo 21:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's good. I didn't want you to get upset when I wasn't trying to do that. Your solution sounds good. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 08:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There were three unsourced paragraphs, to which I've now added some sources. Lupo 10:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Lupo, please feel free to ping the editor who nominated the article for FAR to return and add further comments. If several uninvolved editors agree that the article now meets FA standards, it can be kept without going through the FARC process. Another way to gain attention would be to ask for editors from related projects to come review the article, as well as asking editors who regularly write FAs in biology-related areas to come and comment. Dana boomer (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No objections to a "Keep" at this point in time. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: - I have asked, , and  to comment here, as they are the main biology editors active at FAC. I would like to get a "keep" opinion by at least one of them before closing this FAR without a FARC. Dana boomer (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Fail – Comments: The article appears to need some work, particularly in regard to the lead. Below are my suggestions:
 * The lead sentence seems mildly redundant and simple. "Krill is a shrimp-like marine invertebrate animal." The word "invertebrate" implies "animal".  Furthermore, I personally like to pack in the most important identifying features into the lead sentence.  The item "shrimp-like marine invertebrate" is an excellent start, but could its order (Euphausiacea) be included to give placement among the invertebrates?  Since it's included in the 3rd sentence, maybe just merge the two sentences.  After all, Euphausiacea is a redirect to this article.
 * "important organisms" – "important" sounds like a peacock term. (It's also used in the 2nd paragraph of the lead.)  Anyway, if the first sentence is merged with the second, I would advise the re-wording of the second sentence.  I would recommend focusing on the role the organism plays (without the puffery) and condense of the list of organisms that rely on it.  (The full list should be in the body anyway.)
 * The second sentence of the second lead paragraph sounds overly convoluted.
 * "roughly twice that of humans" – suggested: "roughly twice that of the entire human population."
 * The second lead paragraph repeats a list of predators.
 * The footnote does not have a formal citation, but uses an external link.
 * Taxonomy: Has a phylogeny been established in the literature? If so, could one be provided?  For an example, see Lemur
 * Is there really that little published about krill phylogeny? Any genetic work or controversy over classification?
 * Is the linking of "55° S" and "74° S" examples of over-linking?
 * The second paragraph of the "Behaviour" section seems redundant given the last sentence of the previous paragraph. Is is also very short and should probably be merged.
 * Briefly explain "exuvia".
 * "Krill are an important element of the food chain." → Suggested: "Krill play a key role in oceanic food chains."
 * In the "Ecology and life history" section, the list of predators is short and does not cover what is listed in the lead. The full list should be moved here, along with an appropriate citation.
 * In "Life history", the nauplius larval stage is not described, only listed.
 * None of the information from the lead (uncited) about Euphausia superba, including its total biomass, is included the body.
 * The okiami Japanese spelling and footnote should be in the body, not the lead.
 * The commercial fishing information from the lead does not appear to be a summary and may include uncited information not covered in the body.

In short, there are a lot of problems with this article. The biggest problem is the lead, which in my opinion, needs to be completely rewritten. Also, information presently in the lead needs to be distributed and cited in the body. Aside from that, everything else seems minor. –  VisionHolder  « talk »  02:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Visionholder has brought up some valid concerns. I have struck out my prior comment saying this could be closed early. Instead, these issues should be addressed. In any event, this FAR page should not skip the FARC process. -- Cirt (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Work needed - comprehensiveness: Agree with Visionholder that it needs work, and htat the lead needs a rejig at the very minimum. More as I go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It took me a minute or two to figure out what rank krill are - are we talking species/genus/family...of wait, order. This needs to be stated in the first sentence. I might have a tweak.
 * The article doesn't tell me how many species there are - I wanted to add to the lead that there are X species divided into two families.
 * Any fossil evidence?
 * closest relatives among other crustaceans?

Overall need to sort out comprehensiveness issues before we start on copyediting, though I couldn't help but try to rejig the lead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comprehensiveness issues I'm not familiar with the subject matter, but judging from the 3000+ hits for "krill" in the Web of Knowledge, there's a substantial body of research, and I doubt the article currently is a representative survey. Sasata (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is generally OK, but the prose does need some tidying up in places. In addition to the points already raised, I'd like to see the format of the sourcing made consistent. For instance, ref #27 has "Howard, D.", whereas ref #28 has "D. Howard". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuorum (talk • contribs)

Ucucha 06:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Visionholder, Casliber, Sasata, and Malleus Fatuorum make some good points, and I don't think this article is currently FA quality. Some further points:
 * The "Distribution" section seems to mention some random (?) species and genera. For example, there is an entire paragraph on Antarctic krill, but, as far as I can see, nothing on the Indian Ocean. "Endemic or neritic restricted distributions" doesn't make sense to me.
 * Is there nothing to be said on internal morphology?
 * Some references seem unreliable or not of the quality expected in a biological article (i.e., peer-reviewed literature), like the Online Etymology Dictionary, conservation sites, or news sites.
 * The ITIS reference is used to cite the paragraph that includes depth ranges for the two families, but does not contain that information.

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criterion of concern are quality of sourcing, citations and comprehensiveness  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll '')  04:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delist per the problems mentioned above. Ucucha 06:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist - Significant problem issues of note have been raised by multiple editors, above. -- Cirt (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist per issues above. I sincerely hope someone works to bring it back. –   VisionHolder  «  talk  »  21:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist as it stands. The significant issues in comprehensiveness are too big to ignore. Hopefully someone will get stuck into it. Not my forte, but if someone familar with content gets stuck into it I can help out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.