# Talk:Urceolus

Snoteleks, I noticed you nominated this for GA but the article only has a length of about 400 words, much shorter than the usual length of a GA. I was wondering if you wanted to say a little bit about why the article is so brief, which might make another reviewer more comfortable with giving it a full look. I have nothing against short GAs (in fact, I think we have a dearth of GAs on brief topics), but I was surprised when I clicked on the article and saw its brevity. Thanks! Fritzmann (message me) 17:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002 For sure, I definitely would think the same thing if I were to review this article. Basically, I spent weeks trying to gather more information referring to this genus than what is already in the article, but all I found were records of its presence in various geographical regions. The only outcome I can think of is adding specific info about each species, perhaps as a small description of each within the species list, like I did at Apodera... would that be appropriate? I will still go back to the used literature and try to juice more information out. — Snoteleks (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I think a brief overview of the species' taxonomy and what makes them different would be a good addition; perhaps a short paragraph for each. Fritzmann (message me) 13:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Also is there any information about the synonym Phialonema? I know it's mentioned in the note as a junior synonym, but saying who described it as such in the body may be worthwhile. Fritzmann (message me) 14:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I added the bare minimum of information about Phialonema. I hope to gather more soon, but it takes a while for my computer to load 19th century works. — Snoteleks (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Snoteleks, if you look into the above points I'd be happy to review the article around this weekend! Fritzmann (message me) 19:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
For sure, I will try to get to it before the weekend. Sorry for the late response, I'm approaching important academic deadlines. — Snoteleks (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I too considered reviewing this, but its brevity turned me off. So here's some completely unsolicited suggestions for expansion (to add to Fritzmann's above):
what did Mereschkowsky say about the taxon in his protologue?
where was the type collected?
what does Urceolus mean?
what do these things eat? How do they eat them?
size?
how is this genus distinguished from similar genera, like e.g. Chasmostoma?
the 2 generic synonyms could/should be mentioned in the text.
In classification, is there anything to more say about why the classification changed? Esculenta (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
+1 to all of Esculenta's comments, I think if even half of them are able to be found the length of the article would probably jump by 200+ words. Fritzmann (message me) 11:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
@Esculenta @Fritzmann2002 thank you both for the motivation. I have started squeezing more information out of very old sources. Will update as soon as I can. — Snoteleks (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
@Esculenta @Fritzmann2002 I have updated much of the article following your advice. Would it satisfy a GA now? — Snoteleks (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Nice work! I would now not shy away from reviewing this due to brevity, and, if it's still in the queue, may do so when my pending reviewing commitments have concluded. Esculenta (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
All of the things I would want to see added have been! I'll actually start a review right now; Esculenta, feel free to leave comments as well whenever you get a chance. Fritzmann (message me) 17:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Urceolus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Snoteleks (talk · contribs) 16:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 17:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello again Snoteleks, I'll take a look at this but after watching the expansions you've done I don't foresee any major issues arising. Fritzmann (message me) 17:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for the Latin translation of urceolus?
 Is the Merriam-Webster dictionary citation I just added good enough?
"The Euglenozoa" or just "Euglenozoa"?
 As far as I know it can go both ways.
Any simpler way to say "molecular phylogenies" in the lead? Can still link to molecular phylogenetics
 I wrote 'evolutionary studies' instead.
"They exhibit squirming movements" does this refer to the flagellum or the whole organism?
 The whole cells exhibit squirming movements. I modified the sentence.
"They present an organelle for ingestion, very small in some species" is this the same as the feeding apparatus mentioned in the lede and a sentence earlier? Can you elaborate on this organelle at all?
 I actually noticed this on my own, and rearranged the sentence before you updated the review. Yes they are the same. I also added a bit more elaboration just now.
"only occasionally find their way into the plankton" can you clarify this? Does this refer to the location where the plankton are within the body of water, or actually inside of plankton?
 It does refer to the location, but technically by moving into the location of the plankton (i.e. the water column) they become plankton themselves. Regardless, I modified the sentence, let me know if it's not clear enough.
Don't think you need to mention they are heterotrophic flagellates again in the evolution section
 I hear you, but I also think it's a nice touch since I relate them evolutionarily to their non-heterotrophic euglenophyte cousins.
Perhaps split the sentence that begins "In Urceolus cyclostomus..." in two
 Split made.
Can you rephrase or define "paraflagellar"?
 Rephrased.
Maybe mention when the cladogram was published
 Mentioned.
There's a bit of funky phrasing going on in the sentence starting "He distinguished this new genus..."
 I modified the sentence. Let me know if it needs further change.
At the end of the paragraph about Urceolopsis, perhaps "It was later synonimised to Urceolus [for that reason]"
 Done.
Checked references for the note, and I think that is a very elegant way to handle the complex and contradictory information. I don't think this veers into OR, as it just presents the contradiction in a straightforward way.
 Excellent.
Checks of references 11, 2, and 17/20 yield no issues. Taking the non-English and non-online references on good faith.
 Thank you. But, for full disclosure, the non-online reference (Mereschkowsky, 1877) is out of reach even for me, so I added it assuming good faith on Mereshkowsky's part. Also, I used Google translate to read the non-English references. I hope that's okay?
I think that's fine, since you aren't actually drawing any information from it and are just giving the reader the original location of the description. As for Google Translate, I do the same thing, and I trust you used discretion and omitted anything that might have lost context or meaning through machine translation.
Both images are in the public domain and are on Commons as such
 Excellent. I added them myself, too!
Overall, a very clean and clear article. Once those few things are taken care of I see no reasons not to promote! Fritzmann (message me) 11:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002, thank you for reviewing. I addressed all of your points. Let me know if you need any further changes or additions. — Snoteleks (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Snoteleks, the changes look good to me. Thanks for being incredibly punctual and making this a straightforward review! Passing now, congrats, Fritzmann (message me) 14:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)