Talk:Uncus dzaugisi

GA review

Passed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Uncus dzaugisi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ZKevinTheCat (talk · contribs) 23:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 21:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, thanks for this article. I will leave some general comments first, and then, after these are addressed, look for the more minor issues in a second round.

  • The lead is too short; it should summarise the entire article. In particular, it lacks a summary of the description,
  • The last two sentences are unsourced.
  • This particular article can be short, but it seems too short for a GA. I suggest to go through the 2024 description again, and look for additional information that is missing. For example, make sure to have the diagnosis well covered. The great depth of the impression seems to be important and should be discussed. The affinities also need more discussion. What about the cuticle? What features link it to nematodes? And so on.
  • The geological context is missing. You do not mention the Ediacara Member of the Rawnsley Quartzite; this unit should be introduced. Some background info is needed here; is this the main fossil-bearing member of the national park? What was the paleoenvironment (depositional setting) like? What other life forms are found in the same layers that might have been contemporaneous with Uncus? Just try to provide the broader picture to keep the reader onboard. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additions look good, thank you. Regarding the paleoenvironment section: This does not have to be a source that mentions this genus. It just need to be a few sentences about the Ediacara Member: Importance, what rocks, what environment, what fossils, and what age (the latter is discussed in Hughes 2024). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Devon has access to the Hughes paper, so he added most of the info in the article. It looks like he adressed all of your concers, and I've cleaned up the article and added more citations for the ecology section. Everything should be in order now, but let me (or i guess us) know if there is anything else. Thanks. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • the differing widths along the length body of all traces bears resemblance to the locomotion of nematodes – This is still about the Multina trace fossils? (write "trace fossils" to make this clear). I do not understand "length body" here, what do you want to say?
  • an introvert or proboscis – I can't understand this. If it is correct, then it needs to be linked or explained, otherwise it is too technical.
  • I tried to fix the rest myself to be a bit quicker, hope that's ok, and let me know if you have any questions there, and feel free to revert if needed. After the two items above are resolved, I think we are done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded the locomotion bit to read better, there were few words missing here and there, for example length body was meant to read as length of the body.
    Also linked proboscis to its respective page, but gave a small explanation alongside as there's no page for introverts, so hopefully that's all good now. DevonHalDraedle (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I have to ask once more: the length of the body of all trace fossils bear – if this indeed refers to the trace fossil Multina rather than to Uncus itself (which is not a trace fossil), then I would say that a trace fossil does not have a "body". Simply write "the differing widths of the trace fossils"?
    Regarding the proboscis, this is still not clear to me: is "introvert" a synonym of proboscis, or what is it? If it is a synonym, I don't think we need it here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm that is a good point, would it also be a good idea to say "the trace fossils attributed to Uncus" or "the trace fossils Multina" or leave without?
    Also, an "introvert" is something exclusive to the Sipunculida (its mentioned in detail on their page), but doing a little search they are noted to be "proboscis-like", so I'll probably only note proboscis (More well known word, etc.) DevonHalDraedle (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a link to Sipuncula's anatomy section to "introvert" hopefully that clears it up. I also got rid of the parentheses explaining the proboscis, because the link can easily clear that up. I think the issues we're talking about now are very minor/nitpicks at this point, so I don't think there is really any much more work to be done. If we're all ready I think we can pass the article. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, just reworded the locomotion bit as well so it should be much clearer now. DevonHalDraedle (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, looks good now. Great work, both. I am promoting now, congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Rjjiii talk 03:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artist's interpretation of U. dzaugisi
Artist's interpretation of U. dzaugisi
  • ... that Uncus dzaugisi is the oldest ecdysozoan, a group that contains arthropods, tardigrades, and nematodes, ever found?
  • Source: Hughes et al., 2024 [1]
  • Reviewed:
Improved to Good Article status by ZKevinTheCat (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

ZKevinTheCat (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]


Include uncertainty of ecdysozoan affinity?

I found this (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2024.11.030) dispatch, written by Alexander G. Liu and released by Current Biology, covering the findings of the Hughes et. al. (2024) study. In the dispatch, Liu mentions some reasons to possibly doubt the findings of Hughes and colleagues, while still affirming that U. dzaugisi is the most likely candidate for an Ediacaran ecdysozoan. I was wondering if we should include some of these reasons to doubt (e.g. lack of informative morphological characters, uncertainty of burying/preservation methods of specimens, uncertainty whether or not Multina can be attributed to U. dzaugisi) in the affinities portion of this wiki article? Tseajaia campi (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, I believe that it would indeed be a good idea to include another perspective on the affinities of Uncus, as at the moment we only have a one sided point of view, that being the Hughes et. al. (2024) study and accompanying news reports supporting the study, which makes this article seem quite biased towards not just an ecdysozoan affinity, but the further possible affinities with nematoids and the like.
So introducing a second perspective/point of view on the matter would certainly help with leveling out the bias the article currently has. DevonHalDraedle (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I actually found this article a bit ago but I didn't have access to it and couldn't cite it for anything. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Uncus_dzaugisi