# Talk:Prokaryote

This review is transcluded from Talk:Prokaryote/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I saw your response. While I think we can agree to disagree on captions since what I'd considered "succinct" is subjective and the goal of review is not to enforce personal preference. That said, if the phylogeny section and taxonomy section are so similar, perhaps you can merge them to "phylogeny and taxonomy".
The phylogeny section should not be so largely dependant on one diagram or describing that diagram. That's not to say the diagram or description should be removed, but more information not reliant on the diagram should be added. If you disagree with this, I can ask for a second opinion of another reviewer.
Urchincrawler: As I've said, the section is something of a naming artefact as all the "Taxonomy" material is phylogenetic in character. To make that clear, I've lightly reorganised the material under fewer subheadings, so it can be seen that there are multiple sources for the whole where-do-prokaryotes-fit-in-the-tree-of-life area.
I agree  that a long list would be of little value. Perhaps you could add a couple examples instead. For instance,  "Red dots indicate major lineages where no representative has been isolated..." you could maybe rephrase to something like "As represented by the red dots in the diagram, there are several major lineages  for which no major representative could be identified such as (lineage name) and (lineage name)." That way it's not a big list, but those who cannot view the image can still get some extra info. Let me know if you find this solution suitable.
Urchincrawler: Yes, good idea. Done.
Thanks Urchincrawler (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
P.S. For future reference please reply to my comments rather than editing them. This makes it easier for me to see your response. It also lets me see your responses sooner since I don't get notified when my comments are edited, but I do get a notification if they are replied to. Urchincrawler (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Not really possible, as you have a list of paragraphs and a reply would wrongly go at the end, which would be hideously non-specific and difficult to follow as it'd be non-threadlike. But I can ping you if need be; of course you already know to watch this page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Alrighty, the page is looking much better. I believe it fits criteria for a good article (well written, verifiable, illustrated, etc.) Coverage is broad and verifiable with reliable sources. I'll switch the GA nomination to passed. Congratulations  Urchincrawler (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Urchincrawler (talk · contribs) 19:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Rather than being passed or failed, I have put the review on hold. I do not believe this article currently lives up to all good article criteria. Criteria 1 requires all good articles to be well written, and 1b specifically requires compliance with MOS:LAYOUT. As mentioned in my review, there are issues with MOS:PARA and MOS:OVERSECTION. Criteria 3A is an issue as well since main aspects of the topic are not fleshed out, especially phylogeny. "Unlike the above assumption of a fundamental split between prokaryotes and eukaryotes..." is an issue with readability and neutrality for reasons mentioned in my review.
I will be giving until next Thursday for corrections to be made to potentially bring the article up to good article status.
Please review good article criteria at WP:GACR6
Best of luck. Urchincrawler (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Urchincrawler: I've edited the article to action all the points made to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Much appreciated. I meant to also mention the phylogeny section in my review, but I think I accidentally deleted it. I added it back into my review. Sorry about that. I will look at your edits this evening or tomorrow and provide further feedback if needed. Thanks :) Urchincrawler (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)


### Comments
Review is currently in progress, but so far I am concerned with the layout. The section "Gene Transfer in Archea" is only one short paragraph long. Please add more paragraphs. (See MOS:OVERSECTION) Avoid single sentence paragraphs such as "Another view is that the three domains of life arose simultaneously, from a set of varied cells that formed a single gene pool." (See MOS: PARA)

Closed up/merged subsections.
The article could also use more depth in some areas. For instance, the section on environment mentions symbotic prokaryotes that live within other organisms, but not pathogenic ones. 

Added.
I am concerned about the phrasing of 
"Unlike the above assumption of a fundamental split between prokaryotes and eukaryotes..." 

Edited.
There is a table above that statement with the similarities and differences of Archea, bacteria, and eukaryotes. The paragraph above that describes how eukaryotes may have originated from Archea. This makes it confusing what the "above assumption" is supposed to be. Calling it an "assumption", does not come off as neutral either.

Gone, per the item above.
The phylogeny section is rather empty. It is a single sentence section. It relies on an image to explain rather than providing explanation in it of itself. While pictures are good supporting material, it is not a substitute for providing in depth information on phylogeny.

Extended.
Hi. While I was typing my notice about your article being on hold I see you made some edits. I wanted to acknowledge that so it didn't seem like my notice was ignoring changes already made. I will review your changes later. Thanks. Urchincrawler (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Hello. I reviewed your revisions. The article is definitely improved, but I am still concerned about the phylogeny section as the lower two paragraphs seem strongly dependant on the diagram. This can be issue for those using screenreaders or if the image doesn't load. It also hinders readability to have to go back and forth from the image to the text.
Please use you words to describe which groups of organisms you are referring to rather than "the red dots are so and so." That's not to say the diagram is an issue, but the image should support the text more than the text supports the image.
The image requires some explanation, we agree. Since you don't like long captions, the discussion is well placed in the nearby text; the alternative is to extend the caption with a detailed key. It's not possible to say which groups, as the red dots are scattered throughout the bacteria and archaea and we'd end up with an enormous and somewhat arbitrary list of long and unfamiliar names which wouldn't enlighten readers at all.
More sources for the phylogeny section would help as well since it seems there are only a couple for that section, mainly the source of the diagram.
Partly at least that's an artefact of having "Phylogeny" and "Taxonomy" as separate sections, as the two are closely related – all the discussion of bacteria and archaea is a question of the interpretation of the phylogenetic history as much as a discussion of the 20th century history of taxonomy; similarly, the "Eukaryotes as Archaea" discussion is basically all phylogenetic. There are thus multiple sources on the phylogeny already.
I am concerned about the images under "As Distinct from Eukaryotes." I missed it on my first pass since it's so small on my phone, but the image of the bacteria is repeated and also weirdly tiny. It says "to sane scale", but that wouldn't be guranteed on different devices and the seperate images and captions make it hard to parse. If you want to include one image with a prokaryote and eukaryote side by side that would be better.
The prokaryote image is shown at normal scale at the top of the article. It is provided down here *for scale*, i.e. precisely and only to indicate the small size of prokaryotes for readers familiar with eukaryote cells. The images are already shown side by side, to scale, and are presented together with their own captions and then a group footer which covers the pair of images. The footer is a single sentence and is not unduly verbose. This is a normal use of a footer.
The captions are centered oddly. (For instance the "e" in prokaryote is floating by itself in my view and there seems to be an indent and paragraph break line in the caption of the eukaryotic cell image. It also says, "Part of a eukaryotic cell, to same scale".
I've widened the image group slightly; I've not been able to reproduce your "e" by itself break, but the widening should fix it. As above, the short captions are per the two component images; the single-sentence footer applies (as I said above) to both of them. There is no formatting within the captions: I see them left-aligned on both PC and mobile, so any centring must be the work of your browser.
Eukaryotic cells are some 10,000 times larger than prokaryotic cells by volume, have their DNA organised in a nucleus, and contain membrane-bound organelles."Captions should be succinct per WP:CAP. Please shorten this and move the 10,000 times larger fact to the body with a source as this is not reflected by the image. I also don't understand why it's a footer either.

The footer isn't a caption: it spans two images and their captions. See the items above for the other replies.
The caption for the image under the "first organisms" header could also be made more succinct. I recommend you check WP:CAP for better captioning your images.
That section of the MoS advises succinctness, which it correctly distinguishes from brevity. The caption of this diagram is two sentences, both necessary for general readers to understand the diagram; in particular, what is stated there could not be guessed just by looking at the image, so the caption complies with WP:CAP in being as succinct as possible.
Tiny thing but "candidate phyla radiation" is not defined and is not a term a lay person would understand. Please define this term or link it to a wikipedia page that does.
Edited.
Otherwise, the article is greatly improved. Thank you for your responsiveness. Urchincrawler (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Noted.