Jump to content

Talk:Tardigrade

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MOS:POPCULT

[edit]

Um, MOS:POPCULT states directly that "Cultural references about the article's subject should not be included merely because they exist."

This means that this article's 'In popular culture' section should not contain any item which just says "And episode XXX of show YYY contained a tardigrade." On inspection, almost all the items are exactly of that sort. I suggest we delete the section, unless one or two of the strongest of the items can be saved by beefing them up with some actual content. At the moment even the "Bathybia" item from 1909 says almost nothing other than that a tardigrade was encountered, making it an exceptionally trivial section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree they are all just of that sort, "just exist" is no source or a primary source. Look at for example the Bathybia source, that's way beyond "there's a tardigrade in it." Their place in fiction has a place per WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for discussing. As I said, the "Bathybia" item is a little better than the rest, but the current text still says very little - the tardigrade was big and scary, wow - and as I also said, the item can perhaps be saved by adding something a bit more substantial. Most of the other items are far weaker and I doubt they can be improved to the level required by MOS:POPCULT at all, but you're welcome to try. I suggest we wait a couple of days and if the material is no better than now, we remove all the weak ones. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying these [1][2][3] are substantial mentions, but they show that tardigrade pop-cult is observed outside pop-cult.
I argue for keeping
  • Bathybia
  • Marvel
  • Harbinger Down
  • Sheldrake (it doesn't matter, but fun fact is that he's the son of Rupert Sheldrake)
  • Star Trek
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see what substantial facts can be added to each of those, then. "Observed outside pop-cult" doesn't prove anything as far as the MOS is concerned; nor do "fun facts". Substantial claims beyond "contains a tardigrade" are what are required to salvage any of what currently is a pure trivia-list. As I say, let's give it a couple of days, and anything without a decent claim to fame gets deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
POPCULT doesn't call for substantial facts added to this article, it calls for decent sources supporting their (the examples) mention. And local consensus. I don't want a lot of detail on Harbinger or Star Trek, the specifics are not important, I want them there as solidly sourced examples of these creatures in fiction. It doesn't have to be a list, a sentence or two of prose is fine too. Ping to @Elmidae if you wish to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, as I quoted above, it calls for claims beyond mere existence. Unfortunately, nearly all the current claims are just that. They're also exactly what the MOS deprecates, a list of mere mentions; contrary to your supposition, the desired result is an informative narrative, not multiple mentions of things which might really honestly turn out to be really interesting honestly if only the reader looked up the sources: no, that won't wash. The job of an encyclopedia is to inform, in clear summary style. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've beefed up the Bathybia mention, as tardigrades are fairly central to the tale. I hope we can similarly document a few of the other mentions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I think you broke current ref #40. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, temporarily restored, it's not an ideal source and seems always to be redundant to more scientific sources, but one step at a time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmm. Would advocate a pretty hardline stance here as well, as generally with pop culture sections about taxa that just get dropped in all kinds of media because of their distinctive looks. Semi-substantial discussion by a third party should be the main criterion; otherwise we eventually end up with my go-to humorous reference to the problem (which actually makes the point quite well). By that yardstick, the Star Trek mention, for example, comes with decent sourcing, but the Sam & Max one does not. The problem with the highly popular ones, like tardigrades, is also that if you soften the criteria for special "fun facts", you open the door for endless discussions with the next 20 people who saw one in a video game and can't see why their example should be treated differently. Precedence matters. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice pictures (bless the Dutch)! I do remember that a previous plushie got deleted per COM:TOYS at [4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's some support for Star Trek and Harbinger:[5] (added as ref). Wasn't aware that WhatCulture was on RSP. Also added another source for Sheldrake. Marvel is weaker than I'd like, (there's a nice vid by Marvel, but it doesn't help), but IMO the existing refs are good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the expansion into more than pop-cult, but I find it a little odd to have a separate section for Bathybia. How about one "Literature and music" and one "Film and TV"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The pop stuff still feels a bit wobbly to me; maybe a bit of copy-editing ("massive size"?) will help. 'Film and TV' or 'Motion pictures' is a reasonably coherent s/section, despite the unwelcome presence of "and", but "Lit and music" seems a bit incoherent really. But perhaps anything is better than "In pop culture". Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tardigrade/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 21:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review this. I have a personal interest in this subject area and was planning on eventually working on the article myself, "after all of the lichens were done" (heh), but this way will be much more efficient! Comments in a few days. Esculenta (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Only 9991 lichens to go then ..... Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit of an undercount, but something like that. Esculenta (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks

  • Initial source spot-checks reveal concerns about citation accuracy in this article. The citations appear to have accumulated through multiple edits over time without careful attention to their precise placement and support of specific claims. These is a list of issues from only the first section of the article (Description):
  • "Most range from 0.3 to 0.5 mm (0.012 to 0.020 in) in length," not in cited source
  • "The legs are without joints", "suction discs", "The cuticle contains chitin", none of these facts are supported by any of the three citations following this block of text.
  • "In 1962, Giuseppe Ramazzotti [it] suggested that the Tardigrada be promoted to a phylum." the first source cited for this statement mentions that Ramazzotti "proposed" the phylum in 1962, but doesn't mention anything about "promotion" (which would imply that it was previously classified at a lower taxonomic rank)
    • Said proposed ('Taxonomy').
  • "The eggs and cysts of tardigrades are durable enough to be carried great distances on the feet of other animals." not in cited source
  • "The brain comprises about 1% of the total body volume." verified, but this study is based on a single species, Hypsibius exemplaris, so that should perhaps be mentioned
  • "The brain is attached to a large ganglion below the esophagus" Not supported by the source. The paper does not describe a large suboesophageal ganglion. It describes a "ventral cluster" with only 25-35 nuclei mixed with muscle cells. "a double ventral nerve cord runs the length of the body" - Not explicitly stated in this paper. "The cord possesses one ganglion per segment" - Not explicitly stated, though the paper does discuss ventral ganglia. "each of which produces lateral nerve fibres that run into the limbs" - Not discussed in detail in this paper. "Many species possess a pair of rhabdomeric pigment-cup eyes" - Partially supported but with important differences. The paper states that many Eutardigrada and some Arthrotardigrada possess inverse pigment-cup ocelli, and describes them as having both microvillous (rhabdomeric) and ciliary sensory cells, not purely rhabdomeric. "numerous sensory bristles are on the head and body" - Not mentioned in this paper.
  • "Tardigrades possess a buccopharyngeal apparatus, a swallowing device made of muscles and spines that activates an inner jaw and begins digestion and movement along the throat and intestine. this, along with the claws, is used to differentiate species." The Elzinga (1998) paper is focused on microspines in the alimentary canal across different arthropod groups, and while it discusses various digestive structures, it does not mention a buccopharyngeal apparatus in tardigrades or its use in species identification.

So about half of the statements in this section have dubious verifiability. I would suggest a more thorough audit of text-source integrity for the remaining citations. Let me know how you'd like to proceed. Esculenta (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checked

[edit]
Thanks for checking. I already removed about 40 refs and added 20. I'll go through the rest of the text in more detail from Brusca, i.e. I'll take this as authority to rewrite rather than continue struggling to revise. Will keep you updated with progress. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Description' - redone.
'Reproduction' - checked/reworked.
'Ecology' - redone.
'Environmental tolerance' - checked/reworked, slimmed down refs.
'Taxonomy - seems both of us have checked this.
'Evolution' - checked, slimmed down refs.
'Genomics' - checked, slimmed down refs.
'In culture and society' - checked, slimmed down refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Esculenta: ok, I've radically simplified the sourcing, rewriting some sections and checking the rest. Should be easier to review now, let's hope so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review and massive removal of content

[edit]

Apologies if I enter the discussion without having a significant understanding of the GAN process. Reading the review above I do not see a clear justification for substantial removal of content such as in this edit, for example. Am I missing something? I am grateful that the reviewer noted how there was a need to align content with sources, and I am grateful to Chiswick Chap for their work; however I am concerned about what look like quite significant deletions of content from the article without a clear rationale. Thanks for your kind patience. cyclopiaspeak! 17:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern for the article. However, in every case where I've removed something, I've also added something, and the latter is from a source I'm actually reading at that moment. The effect is to reduce the profligate mix of sources to something more manageable. Sources that have gone have been in several categories: low-quality chatty popular science websites; general news sites or newspapers (usable with care, but definitely second to actual research); multiple introductory overviews of tardigrades etc in general (we don't need a dozen of those all saying the same thing). I've also slimmed down the pop-sci look-how-amazing-tardigrades-are-they-can-survive-a-train-crash-at-17-zillion-mph materials as not telling the reader much that's scientific; instead, I've summarized tardigrades' robustness concisely from fewer sources. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tardigrade&oldid=1264001027"