Talk:Antarctic krill

message: Is the statement
:In the North Atlantic, Meganyctiphanes norvegica and in the Pacific, Euphausia pacifica are important krill species.
specifically the word "important", not POV? -- Timwi 15:34, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If a qualification is added, then it can conform. For instance, "...are important krill species to the food chain..." or some such. --jonasaurus 21:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV?

message: This page is de facto about Antarctic Krill rather than krill in general. I updated the intro paragraph, but I propose to move this article to Antarctic krill and have krill redirect to either Euphausiid or krill (disambiguation). Quick vote:
* Yes, move the page. One-dimensional Tangent (Talk) 01:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote: move 

message: Really like what you have done with the article, i think it could be really good but i have difficulty understanding some of it.
As a native English speaker i found some of the grammar quite poor which made some of the content unintelligable. Also the choice and the way you word the sentences has made it difficult for me to understand what is being conveyed. I have made some minor edits to some of the wording but i still think it needs a bit of work. Again i think this is a good article but with better elucidation and grammar it could be a fantastic article. Yakuzai 21:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: hallo Yakuzai! thank you for your comment. Please help us and change bad language. I am German and know my English is rotten - take care Uwe Kils 21:20, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Kils. Have read through your article more thoroughly and have done some further editing. Will go through it systematically over the next week or two, really want this to be a featured article! Here are some initial thoughts on the introduction: 
1. The bit about the step between prey and predator is hard to understand maybe you could write this up more thouroughly in the ecosystem section and erase it from introduction.
2. In the section Systematic are you trying to give an account of what distinguishes the Antartic Krill from others of the same order? If so i Think you need to state that and also have a link for the meaning of carapax and gnathapod. Peolple who don't have knowledge of technical terms like these will find it hard to understand this section. I made an edit of this section myself but i need to clarify whether you are trying to say that the visibility of the gills is due to the thoracomers on each side of the carapax being so short? Also whether the visibility of the gills is another distinguishing feature of this order? updated by 193.115.13.66 12:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you, Yakuzai, I will work on it Uwe Kils 23:27, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
The article needs to be restructured. I suggest reducing the number of top-level sections by grouping most of current sections under "Biology" and "Ecology". I believe the re-sorting would also make the text flow more naturally. Another thing, which would be helpful for editors and readers alike, would be short explanations of specialized terms in ()'s, when those are first used (especially for those that are now red links). Zocky 20:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard to understand

message: I've gone ahead and implemented my own suggestion: replacing the movie with a still image plus a link to the full movie. I hope you can live with that, but having the full animation inline made editing very tedious for me due to the long load time, and I also find animations distracting when I want to read the text.
The caption says "slow motion" at 300 frames/sec. The GIF contains 10 frames, each displaying for 40 ms. That is, it replays 25 frames/sec. Why not say "slowed down by a factor of 12"? Lupo 14:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The filter-feeding movie 

message: Some ideas on how to expand that section: How large is the eye? What's the size of the individual components (or whatever they're called)? How many of them are there? Is its light sensitivity known? Do rely krill on their vision much?`Is that known at all? or do they start their escape reaction based on sensing changes in the microcurrents around them? Lupo 15:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The eye 

message: Just a few small points that are causing me a few problems when i read this article, they are,
1: the prose in the section "Position in Antartic Ecosystem"  is quite awkward, i think maybe this could be worded better and grammar improved.
2: The overall feel that the article sometimes reads as though it is about Krill in general as oppose to Antartic Krill specifically. 
3: I am in agreement with Lupo that the section on the compound eye should be expanded, as at the moment it just seems like an after thought that has been tagged on to fill up space.
Other than that i think evereyone involved has done a fantastic job! Yakuzai 21:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small points 

message: Uwe wants to share this with you (from his talk page):
===Hello Kils===
Just would like to state that i have very much enjoyed being involved in a project of this nature. To see the speed of co-operation between various people was (Uwe, Lupo and Salleman and all others) fantastic. It was a complete buzz to go off researching about a scientific subject and coming to some understanding and appreciation of a creature that i would have no 
knowledge or interest in otherwise. I would like to say that it takes a damn good teacher to get others interested in what they teach and i for one, if only in a rudimentary and general way have found the subject of Krill and sorrounding issues of ecology and environment fascinating. I think that says a lot about your willingness to let others participate in something which you obviously have great knowledge in and could easily have been a lot less humble with. 
At some point i will put up some informtion on my home page so at least people know a little more about me.
Am going to try to extend the article on Ice-algae so any info you may have would be good.
I hope the article on Antartic Krill gets featured as i think it is now very good. 
Wikiversity sounds like a good idea but will need more time to go through the proposal (not too sure what help i could be).
Once again thanks Uwe! Yakuzai 22:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: no, it is the growth of biomass over a year - amazingly high, isn't it - what I read over my life about krill and our in situ imaging of schools my personal oppinion is that the biomass numbers are even an underestimation. Uwe Kils  20:10, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
If this is not the case then is the above comparison valid?
2. "Several billion tonnes per year" would seem to contradict the opening paragraph's claim of a total biomass of 500 million tonnes. 
"Thus primary production falls within 1 -2 g carbon per square meter, this however is not a very high concentration if compared to the 30 - 50 g carbon per square meter close to the ice. but the area is just enormous, and in the summer there are many hours of daylight".
3. I think these last few sentences need work, wish i could be more specific.
Yakuzai 19:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uwe and I improved point 3, at least; do you like it better now, Yakuzai?  — Catherine\talk 05:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: response from London

message: Just would like to state that i have very much enjoyed being involved in a project of this nature. To see the speed of co-operation between various people was (Uwe, Lupo and Salleman and all others) fantastic. It was a complete buzz to go off researching about a scientific subject and coming to some understanding and appreciation of a creature that i would have no 
knowledge or interest in otherwise. I would like to say that it takes a damn good teacher to get others interested in what they teach and i for one, if only in a rudimentary and general way have found the subject of Krill and sorrounding issues of ecology and environment fascinating. I think that says a lot about your willingness to let others participate in something which you obviously have great knowledge in and could easily have been a lot less humble with. 
At some point i will put up some informtion on my home page so at least people know a little more about me.
Am going to try to extend the article on Ice-algae so any info you may have would be good.
I hope the article on Antartic Krill gets featured as i think it is now very good. 
Wikiversity sounds like a good idea but will need more time to go through the proposal (not too sure what help i could be).
Once again thanks Uwe! Yakuzai 22:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hello Kils

message: Just looked over the expanded biomass section and have made some edits but their are a few sentences that i think need clarifying.
"The total non-krill yield from all world fisheries is about 100 million tonnes per year whilst estimates of annual Antarctic krill production are between 13 million to several billion tonnes per year". 
1. By "Antarctic Krill production" do you mean the annual yield of antarctic krill from fisheries?
:::no, it is the growth of biomass over a year - amazingly high, isn't it - what I read over my life about krill and our in situ imaging of schools my personal oppinion is that the biomass numbers are even an underestimation. Uwe Kils  20:10, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
If this is not the case then is the above comparison valid?
2. "Several billion tonnes per year" would seem to contradict the opening paragraph's claim of a total biomass of 500 million tonnes. 
"Thus primary production falls within 1 -2 g carbon per square meter, this however is not a very high concentration if compared to the 30 - 50 g carbon per square meter close to the ice. but the area is just enormous, and in the summer there are many hours of daylight".
3. I think these last few sentences need work, wish i could be more specific.
Yakuzai 19:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uwe and I improved point 3, at least; do you like it better now, Yakuzai?  — Catherine\talk 05:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Biomass

message: I am quite impressed with this article and firmly believe that it deserves featured status. However, I was somewhat disappointed to discover some rather elementry grammatical faults within the article, after it was featured on the main page, no less (present perfect/preterite, definite article). Before attaining featured status, an article needs to have absolutely no stylistic or grammatical issues. We need to catch these things during the peer review stage, at the latest during the fac stage. Catching them after they're on the main page is way too late. Note that I'm being critical (not scathing :) )of the fac people, not the article's author, whose first language is not, if I recall, English. --Zantastik talk 11:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible we missed this... any assistance with copyediting is always appreciated! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language issues 

message: Congratulations!  This article is the current Featured article on the  Biology Portal.  If you would like to help with the Biology Portal the best place to start is the  portal talk page.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 23:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured on Biology Portal 

message: I added a second FA tag to the article.  The one at the bottom did not seem to create the star icon at the top right corner.  Adding the tag to the top of the article made the icon show up.  Not sure why.. I have the question in to the Template Talk.  Morphh 01:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA Tag 

message: The parenthesis following HNLC in the article state that HNLC means high nutrients low carbon, whilst the actual HNLC article states that HNLC is an acronym for high nutrient low chyllorophll
should this be corrected?
Jk5004 06:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HNLC 

message: On the matter of biomass, rough calculations show that if there are 6 billion humans on the planet at 150 pounds each, we have essentially the same biomass as krill (450 billion tons). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.85.231.54 (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: XKCD (sourced) gives humanity's total mass at some 400 million tons, even among the current 7 billion. Cattle seem to be more abundant than krill, some 600-700 million tons (I haven't actually counted the squares, but guesstimating them.)--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biomass 

message: Note: some of the wikisource links (many of which are included in the references) appear to be broken. Apparently they were moved to de.wikisource.org, but after extensive searching, I can't find anything. Perhaps a non-wikisource version of the texts would be good. GracenotesT § 20:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikisource links

message: The introductory paragraph says krill can weigh up to "2 g (0.7 oz)."  2grams is actually 0.07 oz, not 0.7 oz. I wasn't sure if the statement should say they weight up to 0.07 oz, or up to 20 grams. Can someone who knows the answer fix this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.198.14 (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Krill Weight error, please fix

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Antarctic krill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225124314/http://www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/e_pubs/sb/sb-vol20.pdf to http://www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/e_pubs/sb/sb-vol20.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050414085109/http://www.antarctica.ac.uk:80/Living_and_Working/Diaries/RRS_James_Clark_Ross/antarctic2002_2003/jrupdate12_16.html to http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Living_and_Working/Diaries/RRS_James_Clark_Ross/antarctic2002_2003/jrupdate12_16.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Antarctic krill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050306011126/http://www.palomar.edu/oceanography/iron.htm to http://www.palomar.edu/oceanography/iron.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Living_and_Working/Diaries/RRS_James_Clark_Ross/antarctic2002_2003/jrupdate12_16.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article says krill are a keystone species, while the keystone species article defines the term as having a larger role to play in the ecosystem than would be expected based on biomass.  It seems, by definition, krill cannot be a keystone species. 2601:601:1800:5DC0:1875:973C:A3DA:2754 (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Antarctic krill#Biomass and production notes that: "The biomass of Antarctic krill was estimated in 2009 to be 0.05 gigatons of carbon (Gt C), similar to the total biomass of humans (0.06 Gt C)."  --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keystone species