Talk:Protist/GA2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Snoteleks (talk · contribs) 16:25, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:29, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Comments

First of all, let me say that this article is plainly greatly improved and extended since the earlier GAN. It's now a text of some 7,400 words with 275 citations, from the earlier reviewed text of some 3100 words and 89 citations, a considerable amount of editing work. The article is fully cited and it covers many aspects of the subject thoroughly.

A key concern is the degree of overlap with Eukaryote, and indeed the amount of material here that could perfectly well be moved to that article (or to subsidiary articles). There is not quite a WP:CFORK here at article level, but sections such as 'Evolution and fossil record' could be read as part of Eukaryote and would not be at all out of place if they were there: and much the same could be said for example of 'Modern classification and diversity' which also overlaps substantially. A case can be made for such overlaps but it's certainly uncomfortable.

A minor matter is a slight variability in use of English, which seems mainly British English in style with a few wobbles like "inside of", but nothing worth writing home about.

Images

The many images are suitable for the subject and are from Commons. They appear to be plausibly licensed. There could be said to be too many, but that's largely a matter of taste given modern data rates.

Sources

Citations are solidly scientific and written out in full using the citation templates.

The citation style is inconsistent, being mainly Doe, John with some Doe, J. (acceptable) and some Doe J (Vancouver, incompatible with the Last, First style). It's not a showstopper but it should be sorted out.

[7] Levine 19802 is a broken link. Perhaps it means [29] Levine Corliss etc 1980?

Spot-checks: [38] [82] [125] [177] [191] [233] ok.

Summary

The article is plainly carefully-constructed and matches a conception of its subject. Other conceptions are certainly possible in this case (not made easier by the parallel existence of Protozoa, in addition to the overlaps described above). Overall, the article is a thorough and informed survey of that odd type of entity, a paraphyletic group. Since the existing failings are principally a matter of style and approach, and this approach is at least valid, this article must be at least of GA standard, so I'll conclude the review and leave the small matters above to be tidied up in good time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.