Talk:Vertebrate/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 13:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will have a look soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick notes for now, will have a deeper look later:

"Molecular signatures" – This section does not fit inside "Evolutionary history". Instead, I would expect a section on "Definition", explaining how the group is defined, and this information could be part of it.
- Repositioned the molecular s/section.
- Definition: made a subsection 'Synapomorphies'.

It should also be stated somewhere in the text that Lamarck erected the group in 1801, ideally also explaining what Lamarck's concept of vertebrates was. Could also be included in a "Definition" section maybe.
- New subsection 'Taxonomic history'.

Section titles of "Evolution" and "Evolutionary history" are not helpful – what is the difference in meaning of the two?
- Renamed 'Evolution' to 'Approaches to classification'.

What about vertebrate synapomorphies? You give general characteristics in the "characteristics" section, but this does not say which ones are unique to vertebrates. I think you should state that these characteristics distinguish vertebrates from modern groups, but are not actual synapomorphies when extinct groups are taken into account?
- Added list of synapomorphies.

Anyways, in the characteristics section, I would expect that things like the vertebrate eye, epidermis, kidney etc., all of which also distinguish vertebrates from other modern groups?
- As above.

The "Evolutionary history" is very short. Nothing about mass extinctions? Nothing about the major events in vertebrate evolution (mineralised skeleton etc; the transition to land should also be better explained).
- Extinctions: mentioned the K-T event.
- Skeleton: mentioned the bones/teeth debate.
- Transition to land: extended.
- Jens, I've made additions for this one, but I would like to push back gently here, as for me the whole point of the article is to provide a brief, gentle overview of the group, not all imaginable details and complications, of which there are many, covered as always in the already enormous number of wikilinks in the article.

"Cenozoic: diversification" – Implies that there was more diversification in the Cenozoic than in other epochs, is that really the case? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Renamed to "Age of Mammals".

Other comments

I am a bit worried about technical language/accessibility for such a central article:
- mesothermic: do we really need that term? It could be removed or replaced with something descriptive.
  - Removed.
- amniotes: While an important term that pops up multiple times in the article, I think it should be introduced at first mention (half-sentence is enough). What is amnion that defines the group?
  - Added.
- Miyashita et al. (2019) – We could make this (and other instances) more accessible and less technical by writing "In 2019, Miyashiata and colleagues …" (or "and others"); at least this is what is always asked for at FAC.
  - Edited.
- "paraphyletic" – again, such an important term to understand the article, it would make sense to explain it in a gloss.
  - Added.

During the Cenozoic, the current era, great diversification of ray-finned fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals has taken place. – I still don't think this diversification is really a thing. The sources are about diversification after the mass extinction, and of course we have diversification after that, but I would argue that this was the case for the other mass extinction events as well, and not something specific for the Cenozoic as a whole.
- OK, cut.

Sourcing

The phylogenetic tree below is based on studies compiled by Philippe Janvier and others for the Tree of Life Web Project and Delsuc et al.,[46][47] and complemented (based on,[48][49] and [50]). – I am slightly concerned that mixing multiple studies like this to compile a single cladogram is a bit fishy. The cladogram would in some way contradict each of these individual sources, and isn't that just WP:Synth? The "Tree of Life Web Project", in particular, is a very old source and their cladogram looks very different to the one presented here. Is there no single source providing something comparable that we can use?
- Done. The tree was trying to do a lot of jobs at once, tracing complex details of evolution. I've replaced it with a tree from UCMP which outlines the main points, with no paraphyly and no multi-way branches. I expect I will need your help on the article's talk page when the tree's author(s) complain.

Cloudsley-Thompson, J. L. (2005). – Link is dead. I checked that source (source 35), and it does not support the paragraph it is supposed to support. Please check sources, and I will have to do another spot check to confirm that source-text integrity is as expected. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced.

The "Fishes of the World" source has a mantainance tag [page needed]. GAs should be free of maintainance tags per GA criteria. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.

I added something about the Triassic; this epoch is pivotal in vertebrate evolution so it makes sense to give that some focus. If you think that's too much, let me know. Everything else is looking good, so once we are both happy with the Mesozoic section, I can promote. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to the changes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.