Talk:Rapaza

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rapaza/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Snoteleks (talk · contribs) 23:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 01:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks interesting ... comments later. Esculenta (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Esculenta: I finished reviewing your comments and have made changes accordingly. Let me know if you need anything else. Thank you for taking the time to make this review. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Nice work! I made some copyedits, please check. Other things:

• All images have been checked and verified to have suitable licensing and appropriate captions
• Several citations have been checked to verify source-text integrity, with no issues noted. As a result, I believe the article meets the good article criteria and will promote at this time. Esculenta (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Initial comments:

• lead
• I don't think the taxobox image caption should abbreviate light microscopy (and really, it's more specifically differential interference contrast microscopy); suggest to call it a Tetraselmis phytoplankton rather than cell; suggest "with the anterior part of its cell"; link μm

Done.

• keeping in mind this is the lead, how about a little more jargon explanation, e.g.

Original Text

"Rapaza viridis is the first example of a mixotroph and of a kleptoplastic species within Euglenozoa: it feeds on microalgae through phagocytosis, and then steals the prey chloroplasts to use them for photosynthesis, modifying their structure in the process."

Suggested Revision

"Rapaza viridis is the first known mixotroph (an organism that combines photosynthesis and ingestion of food) and kleptoplastic species within the Euglenozoa group. It eats microalgae by engulfing them—a process called phagocytosis—and then uses the chloroplasts from these algae to perform photosynthesis, altering the chloroplasts' structure in the process."

Implemented.

Original Text

"It is hypothesized that the common ancestor of Euglenophyceae was a kleptoplastic phagotroph, much like this species, due to the presence of horizontally acquired genes from many different algae."

Suggested Revision

"Scientists believe that the ancestor of all Euglenophyceae (a group of algae) was similar to R. viridis. It likely stole chloroplasts from its prey—just like R. viridis—a behavior supported by the discovery of genes in Euglenophyceae that came from different types of algae through a process called horizontal gene transfer."

Implemented.

• Because the article is about 4 topics in one, there should be links for genus, family, and order

Done.

• other links: microalgae, photosynthesis, chloroplasts, common ancestor, divergence, plastid

Done.

• "wihin Euglenozoa" -> "within the phylum Euglenozoa"

Done.

• "only feed on Tetraselmis cells native to its original environment" -> "native to their"

Done.

• link Cavalier-Smith in taxobox

Done.

• bolded lead terms Rapazida and Rapazia should redirect to article; (not GA) Rapazidae redirect appears to have incorrect "year described" category

Fixed.

Etymology

• don't need to link Latin twice

Removed.

• suggest a singular link to specific name (species is common enough to not need link) when referring to just viridis; remember, the "species name" is the full binomial (in both codes), and "epithet" is ICNafp terminology. I think maybe what you were going for could be accomplished grammatically correctly with a possessive apostrophe ("the species' epithet"), but that's a potentially confusing construction.

Fixed.

Taxonomy

• genera aren't described, they are circumscribed (or erected, but yeah, that's a funny word)

Done. I never use that word out of fear that it's harder to read.

• "It was created to accommodate a species of euglenid, Rapaza viridis," at that time, it didn't have a name (I'm assuming) so the prose should be tweaked here

Tweaked. Let me know if it still needs improvement.

• link cultivation, DNA analysis (maybe a link to molecular phylogenetics is more appropriate?

Done.

• "In 2016, protozoologist Thomas Cavalier-Smith" false title

Done. I learnt something new today, as I had no idea this was a thing.

• "As of 2021, only Rapazidae and Rapazida are accepted taxa" accepted by who?

Elaborated.

Biology

• "a type of protist that is capable of swimming through two flagella" suggest "by using two flagella"

Done.

• how long are the flagella?

They never explicitly mention the flagella length in micrometers. They always relate it to some other length of the cell. I added more info on their approximate length anyway.

• link peristaltic

Done.

• "On the other hand" probably best to avoid idiomatic expression in encyclopaedic prose intended for a global audience

Done.

• "they capture algae with the anterior part of the cell and drag it swimming backward in a spiral pattern or rotate rapidly." something wrong with the grammar at the end I think (maybe " ... or rotating rapidly.")

Done.

• link cell wall, theca (maybe gloss this uncommon term too), thylakoid, endosymbiotic

Done. It seems I was wrong in using 'cell wall' since members of the Chlorodendrophyceae (like Tetraselmis) do not have a true cell wall, but a theca of organic scales.

Evolution

• "eukaryovorous" -> "eukaryote-eating is an easy replacement for the jargon; same could be done with algivorous later

Done.

• link protein targeting

Done.

other thoughts

• There seems to be quite a bit of recent and possibly relevant research that hasn't been included in the article. Have you considered the following sources: doi:10.1093/pcp/pcad070, doi:10.1093/pcp/pcad044, doi:10.1016/j.algal.2023.103292, doi:10.1186/1471-2148-14-25, this, doi:10.1111/jeu.12959, doi:10.1002/bies.201700149, doi:10.1111/1758-2229.12817. There may be information spread in here about broader implications on how the research of this species impacts our understanding of euglenid diversity or contributes to broader scientific fields (like endosymbiotic theory or phototrophic evolution).

I added a lot more info thanks to these. Now the number of references has doubled!

• since the article is about four taxa, perhaps there should be a few words about how specifically the order/family/genus are defined.

Done.

• extending this thought, this part in Taxonomy "His classification scheme was neglected by other authors in favour of" could be expanded. Is there any rationale given by Kostygov et al. as to why they prefer their own classification scheme?

No rationale is given anywhere. That is how things tend to go when it comes to changing Cavalier-Smith's classification, it is never explicitly argued against, just ignored.