Wikipedia:Peer review/Starfish/archive1

Starfish

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is very close to FA status and think a peer review would prepare it for FAC.

Thanks, LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Many species are brightly coloured in various shades of red or orange, while others are blue, grey, brown or drab." "Drab" indicates a lack of brightness rather than being a colour of itself. I don't think that it fits here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

In "Taxonomy", paragraph 1, I don't think that the detailed information about the difference between deuterostome and protostome embryology is needed. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

In "Taxonomy", paragraphs 2 & 3, there is too much information about echinoderms in general. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like this has been taken care of. LittleJerry (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The "Taxonomy" section doesn't mention the orders. The taxobox lists seven extant orders and two extinct orders. Are these seven all of the extant starfish orders? If so, could we have a bit of information about these, perhaps a sentence on each, or a list with a brief description? A sentence or two about the extinct orders would also be helpful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, we have exactly that, but in the 'Diversity' subsection of 'Evolutionary history'. Do you feel we should merge Evol. history with Taxonomy? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for pointing that out. Yes, merging the sections is a good idea. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am not so sure. It was only on the 30th and 31st May that I split up and rewrote the Taxonomy and Evolutionary History sections. I reckon the taxonomy section should come at the beginning before we plunge into the Anatomy section, in order to set the scene, so to speak. So if we are going to merge them I think they should go up front. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I thought about it. Merged, it makes for a long and rather technical section, not ideal up front with the debated phylogeny (phylo-what?) which really isn't for drop-by-quick readers. So I put it at the end... There is, however, a little bit of somewhat introductory stuff in Diversity (They are star-shaped ... brittle stars ... cylindrical arms.) which could certainly go up front, maybe with a few other words of overview. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. The merged section is better. However similar articles tend to have this information near the top. Let's leave it as it is for the time being. When the FAC reviewers read it, we can draw a wider consensus. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I have revived the Taxonomy section in a different, abbreviated form. It provides a lead-in to the Anatomy section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

From "Anatomy", paragraph 1: "It is not unusual for species that typically have five arms to exceptionally possess six or more through abnormal development." Is it "not unusual"? Or is it "exceptional"? It shouldn't be both. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have adjusted the text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

From "Anatomy", subsection "Body wall", paragraph 1: "The body wall consists of ... a thin coelomic epithelium which contains the longitudinal and circular musculature and the peritoneum." Does the body wall really contain the peritoneum? The reference describes sea urchins. Why is this reference used? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The body wall includes the peritoneum according to the source. I have added further references and changed the sea urchin one to the equivalent starfish source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't get access to that reference (Ruppert). After reading around, I concede that the peritoneum might be considered part of the body wall, although I didn't find a text that explicitly stated that. I believe that the "thin coelomic epithelium" is actually the peritoneum, and it doesn't contain musculature. (Why would epithelium contain musculature?) Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The source actually says "The body wall consists of a thin cuticle, a monolayered epidermis, a thick connective-tissue dermis, and the coelomic epithelium of myoepithelial cells, which form the musculature, and a peritoneum." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. The source is slightly confusing due to the use of the conjunction "and" twice, and the numerous commas. Certainly the body wall includes the cuticle, epidermis and dermis. The first use of the word "and" seems to imply that the coelomic epithelium is also included in the body wall. The presence of myoepithelial cells within the coelomic epithelium implies the presence of muscle tissue, which isn't clear in the article's text. The last part of the source's statement, "and a peritoneum", doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence I quoted from the source is difficult to interpret but it is accompanied by a diagram which provides clarification. The peritoneal cells are scattered among the myoepithelial cells and are "T"-shaped so that the myoepithelial cells are not on the whole in contact with the body cavity which is lined by the flat tops of the peritoneal cells. I have changed the wording in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

In "Anatomy", subsection "Body wall", it is possible to add a picture of the ossicles? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

From "Anatomy", subsection "Body wall", paragraph 1: "Paxillae are umbrella-like structures found on starfish that live buried in sediment. They meet edge to edge and form a false cuticle." I presume that "They" are the paxillae, not the starfish. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Reworded slightly. Better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

How about "The edges of adjacent paxillae meet to form a false cuticle". Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

From "Anatomy", subsection "Body wall", paragraph 2: "Several groups of asteroids, including Valvatida and Forcipulatida, possess pedicellariae." "Asteroids" means "starfish". It is unhelpful to use this alternate name within the text. A single name should be used consistently—I recommend "starfish" because it is the more accessible name. The term "asteroids" is used in the "Taxonomy" section, but I have overlooked that because of the importance of distinguishing Asteroidea from Ophiuroidea. (There is still a good case for changing the term in the "Taxonomy" section.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been through the article and changed the "Asteroids" where they occurred. I have left the word in one place in the the taxonomy section where the asteroids are being contrasted with ophiuroids. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

"Anatomy", subsection "Water vascular system", paragraph 1 is a little confusing with respect to the orientation and connection of the canals. Is it possible to add a diagram that shows just the canals? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no suitable diagram on commons - there is a Swedish one but it doesn't look quite right to me. It would need Anglicising and Google translate can not cope with its terms. There is a nice one in "Invertebrate Zoology" that I could copy but probably not to FA standard! I'll have a go if you like. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's leave it for the time being. If the FAC reviewers comment about it, you could address it then. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

From "Anatomy", subsection "Water vascular system", paragraph 1: "On either side of this are short lateral canals that branch off alternately to right and left and which end in ampullae." I'm not sure that "left" and "right" are appropriate for a radially symmetrical animal. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify this a bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

From "Anatomy", subsection "Water vascular system", paragraph 3: "Most starfish cannot move quickly, with the leather star (Dermasterias imbricata) managing just 15 cm (6 in) in a minute." It is unclear why the leather star's speed is quoted. It is supposed to be a particularly high speed, a low speed, or a representative average? (The sand star's speed quoted later in the paragraph implies that the the leather star is not unusually fast.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Rephrased this sentence. 6 inches per minute is a bit sluggish! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Anatomy", subsection "Water vascular system", last paragraph describes oxygen uptake, but does not mention carbon dioxide removal. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

From "Anatomy", subsection "Water vascular system", last paragraph: "Oxygen dissolved in the water is distributed through the body mainly by the fluid in the main body cavity; the hemal system may also play a minor role." Is there an appropriate wikilink for "hemal system"? (I know that the system is briefly described later in the "Circulatory system" subsection.) Also, the article seems to be written in British English (as opposed to American English). Should it be "haemal system"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

From "Anatomy", subsection "Sensory and nervous systems", paragraph 1: "These are composed of pigmented epithelial cells that respond to light, with narrow sensory cells lying between them." Aren't the "pigmented epithelial cells that respond to light" also sensory cells? If the "narrow sensory cells" don't respond to light, in what meaning are they "sensory"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

From "Anatomy", subsection "Sensory and nervous systems", paragraph 2: "While starfish lack a centralized brain, their bodies have complex nervous systems which are coordinated by what might be termed a distributed brain." Surely the distributed brain co-ordinates the body/muscles rather than co-ordinating the nervous system? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed "distributed brain", a relic of the article from before my time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

From "Anatomy", subsection "Sensory and nervous systems", paragraph 2: "The peripheral nerve system consists of two nerve nets, a sensory system in the epidermis and a motor system in the lining of the coelomic cavity." Is the epidermal sensory system one of the nerve nets, and the motor system in the coelomic cavity the other nerve net? Or are the two nerve nets distinct from the sensory & motor systems, all of which are part of the peripheral nerve system? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the comma into a semicolon and added an extra sentence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It should be a colon, not a semi-colon. I have fixed this. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

From "Anatomy", subsection "Circulatory system": "The blood vessels form several rings: one around the mouth (the hyponeural haemal ring), another around the digestive system (the gastric ring) and a third near the aboral surface (the genital ring)." Perhaps "three rings" rather than "several rings"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

From "Anatomy", subsection "Circulatory system": "A vertical channel (the axial vessel) connects the three rings and the heart, which beats about six times a minute, is at its apex, near the madreporite." The first part of the sentence implies that the heart is connected to the rings by the vertical channel. However the latter part of the sentence implies that the statement about the heart may be separate from the statement about the vertical channel & rings. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have adjusted the syntax. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

From "Anatomy", subsection "Circulatory system": "The genital ring has further channels running along the arms next to the gonads." Are the channels next to the gonads? Or are the arms next to the gonads? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Added further information to clarify. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't help. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've had another try.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The current text is an improvement. "This vessel has a blind end and there is no continuous circulation of the blood." I presume that there is circulation within the rings? How about "This vessel has a blind end and there is no continuous circulation of the blood within it." Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I have made that change but actually the source says "... the pattern of circulation of the colourless blood is unknown" and "limited evidence indicates that the blood has a role in nutrient transport." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The heart beats six times per minute so I assume that some sort of circulation occurs—not to mention the irony of a "circulatory system" with no circulation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

From "Anatomy", subsection "Circulatory system": "The fluid does not contain a pigment and has no respiratory function." The last paragraph of "Water vascular system" indicates a possible minor respiratory role. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I have changed it to "little or no role". They obviously don't know a great deal about how the haemal system functions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

From "Anatomy", subsection "Secondary metabolites": "Starfish produce a large number of secondary metabolites in the form of lipids, including steroidal derivatives of cholesterol, and fatty acids, mostly amides of sphingosine." I think that sphingosine is an amino alcohol, not a fatty acid. Amidation doesn't make it a fatty acid. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The source for this statement is online and I have reformatted the reference to make this more apparent. It states "Starfish are prolific producers of secondary metabolic lipids. These include cholesterol derivatives (steroids) and fatty acids, the former are often modified by attached sugar groups (glycosylation), while the latter are primarily amides of sphingosine." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I admit that this detail of organic chemistry is pushing the limit of my knowledge. It has been many years since I studied chemistry. I accept that the source makes that statement. However I do not believe that it intends to imply that amidation alone of sphingosine will make it a fatty acid. Sphingosine undergoes acylation to make ceramides and other sphingolipids, rather than amidation. The source goes on to describe sphingolipids: "Long-chain fatty acid amides of sphingosine, known collectively as sphingolipids, are widespread in Asteroidea." This statement is certainly correct.

How about this: "Starfish produce a large number of secondary metabolites in the form of lipids, including derivatives of cholesterol and sphingosine. The derivatives of cholesterol are mostly saponins...." An alternative: "Starfish produce a large number of secondary metabolites in the form of lipids, including steroidal derivatives of cholesterol, and fatty acid amides of sphingosine". Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"Life cycle", subsection "sexual reproduction" includes a photo of Coscinasterias calamaria. The photo doesn't seem to represent sexual reproduction. Why is the photo there? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

From "Life cycle", subsection "sexual reproduction", paragraph 2: "Those starfish that brood their eggs by overlaying them usually raise their disc and assume a humped posture." What does "overlaying" mean in this context? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the wording. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

From "Life cycle", subsection "sexual reproduction", paragraph 2: "Pteraster militaris broods a few of its young and broadcasts the remaining eggs which are too voluminous to fit into its pouch." How about: "Pteraster militaris broods a few of its young and disperses the remaining eggs which are too numerous to fit into its pouch." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Done.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

From "Life cycle", subsection "Regeneration": "Other than fragmentation carried out for the purpose of reproduction, the division of the body may happen inadvertently due to part being detached by a predator, or part may be actively shed by the starfish in an escape response, a process known as autotomy." Autotomy was described in the preceding subsection. Does it need to be defined again? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

From "Ecology", subsection "Distribution and habitat": "Other areas known for their great diversity include the tropical-temperate regions around Australia, the tropical East Pacific and the cold-temperate water of the North Pacific (California to Alaska)." I wasn't sure about the capitalization of "East" and "North". After reading MOS:COMPASS and Pacific Ocean, I think that "East" is probably okay. However I don't think that "North" is right. Moreover, "California to Alaska" would be better described as "northeast Pacific". Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

From "Ecology", subsection "Ecological impact", paragraph 1: "Their relatively large sizes, diverse diets, indeterminate growth and ability to adapt to different environments gives them great ecological importance." What does "indeterminate growth" mean? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

From "Ecology", subsection "Threats", paragraph 1: "Their first line of defence is the saponins present in their body walls, which have unpleasant flavours." There is an odd combination of singular and plural forms. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

From "Ecology", subsection "Threats", paragraph 1: "The crown-of-thorns starfish is particularly unattractive to potential predators, being defended by sharp spines, toxins and bright warning colouration." The "crown-of-thorns starfish" article states "they are usually of subdued colours". Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It is what the source states, but I have reworded it a little and also rephrased the crown-of-thorns starfish page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "often with bright warning colouration" fits with "usually subdued". How about "sometimes" rather than "often"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

OK Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)