# Talk:Symbiosis

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 January 2022 and 20 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mitra002 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: LeahWodajo1.

I cant find any reference to the clownfish producing a high pitch sound emission as stated under the top picture. 2603:8000:7F00:7C:8191:2B9B:8F9A:6160 (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Removed, it seems to have been an accretion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This statement: "In the 21st century, the latter has become the definition widely accepted by biologists." is really problematic. I would advice removal of it, as it really not in accordance with how professional biologists use the term at all. At the very least, it needs a lot more sources if it is to remain. 94.255.241.191 (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Douglas 2010 is a reliable source, and we don't base single claims on multiple sources (that's WP:OR), but the section can do without the statement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Symbiosis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 17:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello CC, I will give this article a deep read and get back with a GA review within a few days. Esculenta (talk)

Many thanks for the detailed review. I have it watchlisted but (despite now playing with it repeatedly) it doesn't pop up on my watchlist at all, only noticed by visiting the page. Weird. Maybe ping me just in case I don't look.
Ok, thanks for your prompts fixes; I think this article meets the GA criteria and will promote it at this time. Esculenta (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)


### Prose
I did a quick copyedit; please see if these are ok (I boldy tweaked the prose of some definitions)
Thanks!
Core concepts are generally explained in plain language, but the article lapses into dense or repetitive phrasing (e.g. the lead repeats the "close and long-term interaction" idea twice).
You seem to have fixed this already.
Long, clause-laden sentences—especially in the Endosymbiosis sub-section and the Muller's-ratchet paragraph—reduce readability for non-specialists.
Edited.
Several paragraphs stray into textbook-level molecular detail (genome reduction, ORF size) without bridging sentences, making the flow abrupt for a broad audience.
Edited, simplified.
WP:WTW and tone: "spectacular example", "supreme situation", "fascinating way", "enormous detrimental effect", "extremely successful mode of life" might need to be neutralized a bit per MOS:PEACOCK and MOS:EDITORIAL (c/e'd a couple already)
Edited, thanks for the edits.
There's still "For example, Atlantic and Pacific lemon sharks consistently react to the wrasse fish in a fascinating way." This entire paragraph reads like it was written by an enthusiastic shark fan and is perhaps given a bit too much coverage for this overview article?
Rewritten, trimmed.
might be a good idea to template-specify the English variety to avoid "helpful" spelling corrections in the future ... generally looks like Oxford to me, but the hyphenated co-evolution is British flavour...
Done.


### Lead
Lead is etymology-heavy: parenthetical Ancient Greek transliterations overwhelm the definition. MOS recommends concise etymology (one line) and a summary of content, not source quotations (MOS:LEADCLUTTER).
There's a brief parenthesis for the etymology as is very common in articles. The only quote in the lead is the historical one of 6 words.
Look at this: (Ancient Greek συμβίωσις symbíōsis: living with, companionship < σύν sýn: together; and βίωσις bíōsis: living) Please explain why is it necessary to bombard the casual encyclopedia reader with the full Greek transliteration in the lead sentence? Why not simplify by just saying what the root words mean, taking out the lead citation, and then put the full orthography in the definition section? (e.g. "from Greek meaning "living together") Is "<" part of the etymological symbology or a typo?
All right, we can try that. I'll just note that biology articles usually put the etymology up there.
It touches only lightly on later sections (classification by dependency, ecological importance, evolution). Should briefly summarise Types, Role in evolution, and at least one major example.
Done.
the Frank (1877) citation has a large block of foreign-language text, and de Bary a smaller one. Because this is explanatory material, I think the MoS prefers such material in a separate explanatory footnote (per MOS:NOTES)
Not in lead. Moved Frank quote to note. The de Bary quote is quite short and appropriate within a ref. Neither is exactly explanatory; rather, they are evidence of the original definitions, which is the job of refs.


### Spot checks & sources
I have checked several of the accessible sources and am satisfied that the article information is properly cited and free from close paraphrasing.
Noted.
please provide a citation for the footnote "The acacia ant protects at least 5 species of "Acacia" …"
Removed note.
Source quality assessment: 

the "AskNature" source is 404; since it is user-generated, not peer-reviewed, it should probably get replaced with better anyway.
Replaced ref.
Yale Daily News article (Pevner 2018) – student newspaper; classed as a newsblog-level, undergraduate publication with minimal editorial control; the evolutionary assertions it supports ("mutualism can come from parasitism") should perhaps come from the underlying peer-review study (or subsequent review of it) there's some inconsistency with source presentation (what's the point of listing a source separately in sources, when the single sfn short citation used for it doesn't even specify a page number?) on second thought, this isn't in GA criteria
Removed, other sources present.
Lee (2003) is 404
Archived.
National Geographic archive link doesn't play any video
Removed.
"Herridge, David (2013). "Rhizobial Inoculants". GRDC." insufficient info in this citation for reader to verify source
Added URL.


### Coverage
The article succeeds in covering the classic pillars of the subject: etymology, historical debate over definitions, major categorical frameworks (obligate/facultative, ecto/endo, etc.), evolutionary significance, and several headline examples (lichens, mycorrhizae, pollination, nitrogen fixation, acacia ants, cleaning symbiosis). Where it might need some tweaking is in evenness: some subsections balloon with fine-grained detail while other important facets are touched only lightly or not at all, e.g.:

Human symbioses – the human microbiome and its medical implications are absent, yet this is a very commonly cited contemporary example of symbiosis
Speciesism, probably.
Cheating/context dependence – current ecological literature emphasises conditional outcomes (switches between mutualism and parasitism); this is missing except for a brief fungal note.
This is getting very "niche"; in an introductory overview article we have to begin with what the topic is and what its major types are.
Symbiosis in biotechnology/agriculture beyond rhizobia – e.g. mycorrhizal inoculants, biofertilisers, termite gut cellulases, algal–bacterial biofuels.
We've mentioned multiple examples that benefit humans/agriculture, including pollination and seed dispersal as well as mycorrhiza and nitrogen fixation already.
Network/ecosystem perspective – how multispecies symbiotic networks structure communities (e.g. microbiome consortia, plant–fungus–bacteria tripartites).
Once again, this is getting very niche.
Recent phylogenomic insights – the article cites genome reduction in insects but omits landmark 2020s studies on hologenomes and horizontal gene transfer mediated by symbiosis.
There's a section on the hologenome.
Areas that may overrun summary style:

Endosymbiosis/genome reduction paragraph – ~240 words of molecular mechanics, multiple parenthetical definitions; could be condensed or split off to a specialist page.
Trimmed the section. We already have the two subsidiary articles.
Competition and amensalism sub-sections – arguably peripheral to symbiosis if the article adopts the narrower "living together" scope; they read like standalone ecology textbook entries.
But the article can't do that, as usage in biology has largely switched to the close relationship definition.


### Images
image File:Common jassid nymphs and ants02.jpg seems to be under a CC BY-NC license ("Attribution NonCommercial Unported 3.0"), and it's unclear to me how this can be allowed; I see however that it's being used in many wikis, so maybe I'm missing something?
It's also licensed under the GFDL.
all other images have acceptable licensing, informative captions, and are used appropriately to illustrate the content.
Noted.