Talk:Alicella/GA1

GA review

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: AxonsArachnida (talk · contribs) 02:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 00:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Great to see an article on such a neglected topic here! Comments:

• The lead needs work, per MOS:LEAD. It should be longer to summarizse the entire article. It should be particularly easy to read and accessible. The first sentence is too long; best split. Provide the information one point after the other, e.g. you write The monotypic Alicella lives only at great depths, but it is better to first say "Alicella gigantea is the only species within the genus Alicella. It is restricted to great depths, …". This way, you explain (or here: avoid) the technical term "monotypic", which will be challenging to many readers (again, the lead should be particularly accessible).
• In 2008, this species was moved from the Lysianassidae to a new family, the Alicellidae and was selected as the type genus. – Only a genus, not a species, can be selected as type genus.
• The genus name Alicella refers to the ship Princess Alice, which collected the first specimens. – When?
• the species name gigantea refers to the very large size of the species. – The specific name, to be precise (the species name is the whole binomen). Also, can we know what language the word derives from?
• there are very small differences in the shape and size of antenna segments. – add "between males and females" for clarity?
• The peduncle of the second antennae is short its first article strongly swollen. – and missing?
• In the description section in particular, work needs to be done according to WP:MTAU. In particular, wikilink all technical terms to the relevant articles, and, ideally, provide in-text explanations for those terms that are crucial for understanding the text.
• is two jointed and is large –> "is two-jointed and large"
• by Coryphaenoides yaquinae – state what type of animal that is (e.g., "by the grenadier fish Coryphaenoides yaquinae")
• whilst in another study trace elements such as cadmium and chromium were detected in high concentrations. – How is this related to human impact, where do these come from?

Sources

• Spot checks recover no issues. Ref 19 needs more metadata (publisher, type of source, author if available, etc.). At the moment, there is just the weblink.

Concluding remarks: Considering that this is your first GAN, it is quite impressive! There are only two points that require a bit more work, which is the lead section and wikilinking throughout with in-text explanations of the most critical terms. The other comments are more minor. Please let me know if you have any questions. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack Many thanks for the speedy review. All points seem clear to me. I'll begin working through these shortly. AxonsArachnida (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack I've gone through the minor comments first and have listed my actions for each below. I'll begin working on the lead and the description sections within the next day or two.

• "In 2008, this species was moved from the Lysianassidae to a new family, the Alicellidae and was selected as the type genus. – Only a genus, not a species, can be selected as type genus."

Changed "species" "to genus".

• "The genus name Alicella refers to the ship Princess Alice, which collected the first specimens. – When?"

Added date of collection (1897).

• "The species name gigantea refers to the very large size of the species. – The specific name, to be precise (the species name is the whole binomen). Also, can we know what language the word derives from?"

While looking at this I realized that the cited source doesn’t explicitly state that this is the origin of the specific name (although from context it is very clear this is the case). I haven’t been able to find any source that directly states this is the reason for the name. As such I’ve removed the line altogether.

• "There are very small differences in the shape and size of antenna segments. – add "between males and females" for clarity?"

Added.

• "The peduncle of the second antennae is short its first article strongly swollen. – and missing?"

Added "and".

• "is two jointed and is large –> "is two-jointed and large""

Fixed grammar as suggested.

• "by Coryphaenoides yaquinae – state what type of animal that is (e.g., "by the grenadier fish Coryphaenoides yaquinae")"

Added fish common name before species name.

• "whilst in another study trace elements such as cadmium and chromium were detected in high concentrations. – How is this related to human impact, where do these come from?"

Added "which were suggested to be linked to human activity" to end of sentence. This is a bit of a tricky one. The original paper does state that the higher trace element concentrations were likely due to human activity, but they don't state which human activities this would be the result of. There are research papers that link these trace elements with the usual suspects ie industrial activity, mining etc, but I think it would misrepresent the paper if specific causes are listed.

Thanks again for your comments. AxonsArachnida (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack Hello, I've tackled the description section with the goal of making it easier to understand. I've followed WP:MTAU as best as possible. I've listed the changes I've made below:

• Added wikilinks to most of the technical terms. Some terms (ie peduncle, epistome, urosomite) don't have appropriate pages to link to.
• Technical terms have had a quick explanation added in parentheses upon their first usage.
• Cleaned up some minor grammar mistakes
• Shifted the small paragraph on distinguishing it from other amphipods to the start of the technical part of the description. This is the most important (and easiest!) bit and is the one, so it belongs at the beginning.

The original articles for the technical description are at postgraduate level. I think the descriptions here are understandable to an interested undergraduate. The original terms were simplified as much as I could, but I'm not sure if there are any ways to simplify these further without losing detail.

Next I'll start working on the article lead. I'm aiming to do this within 2-3 days.

Many thanks AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack I've just bulked up the lead section. I've made it more representative of the whole article and tried to keep it as simple as possible without losing detail. It's certainly an improvement!

I think this concludes the last round of edits, unless there's something I'm missing? I'd be grateful to hear your thoughts to see if this can be improved further :)

Many thanks AxonsArachnida (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for these improvements, this is high level! Congrats for the GA. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2025 (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.