Talk:Alicella

GA review

• Hi, I'll take a look at the article as if it was a FAC review, and give some pointers at what would be expected and how to prepare it for that. Some preliminary points below until I review the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• First, there are a few unnecessary WP:duplinks, for example Lysianassidae twice in the first section, three links to arthropod leg, and scavenger probably also only needs one link, because the three anatomy terms you link all go there.
• The text under genetics about phylogeny and evolution would normally be a subsection of taxonomy.
• Do they have an IUCN Red List conservation status, or is there any info on this?
• Galleries are discouraged in FAs, images should be spread out to their relevant sections. I see that many of the images in the gallery are very similar to others in the article, so many of them are simply redundant. On the other hand, as you have already done under Description, related images can be grouped together in multiple image templates, which is fine.
• This image is interesting, but has a lot of unnecessary space at the top, a new cropped version could be made and used here instead.
• The first sentence under Gigantism needs a citation.
• The article is fairly short, have you searched places like Google Scholar and JSTOR for additional sources? If you don't have access to a source, you can request it at WP:RX.

FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @FunkMonk. I've gone through your preliminary comments below:

• First, there are a few unnecessary WP:duplinks, for example Lysianassidae twice in the first section, three links to arthropod leg, and scavenger probably also only needs one link, because the three anatomy terms you link all go there.

I've removed the extra Lysianassidae and scavenger links. The three links to arthropod leg each cover a different anatomical term. Is this still not considered ideal?

• The text under genetics about phylogeny and evolution would normally be a subsection of taxonomy.

I'm not so sure about it. Most of the genetics/genome stuff don't really inform taxonomy at all. It feels like it would be out of place to have discussions of genome size and genetic inferences of species range in taxonomy.

The text about phylogeny should definitely be moved to the taxonomy section, either fully integrated or as a subsection, as this is how all other FAs are structured. It should then be preceded by historical, pre-DNA views on interrelationships. You could argue that the text about the genome itself should be separated, but then I'd put it under biology or such. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I've integrated genetics stuff as suggested above.

• Do they have an IUCN Red List conservation status, or is there any info on this?

They have no conservation status yet (or any mention of their conservation needs).

• Galleries are discouraged in FAs, images should be spread out to their relevant sections. I see that many of the images in the gallery are very similar to others in the article, so many of them are simply redundant. On the other hand, as you have already done under Description, related images can be grouped together in multiple image templates, which is fine.

I'm a bit surprised to hear that galleries are discouraged. Why exactly is this? Regardless, I deleted the gallery and reintegrated all of the images except for two into the main article.

See WP:galleries "In articles that have several images, they are typically placed individually near the relevant text (see MOS:IMAGELOCATION). Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons". FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

• This image is interesting, but has a lot of unnecessary space at the top, a new cropped version could be made and used here instead.

Done

• The first sentence under Gigantism needs a citation.

Done

• The article is fairly short, have you searched places like Google Scholar and JSTOR for additional sources? If you don't have access to a source, you can request it at WP:RX.

Yes, this represents the entirety of what's known about the species. I haven't been able to find anything else that is substantial. There are a few articles here and there that make one sentence mentions of A. gigantea, but these don't contribute anything new. AxonsArachnida (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Ah, AxonsArachnida, I see you duplicated my comments instead of replying under them; at FAC, and generally at reviews (see for example here:), you just reply directly under each comment, so we don't end up with two parallel discussions and avoid confusion. I'll reply to your replies above, and continue with new comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

  @FunkMonk Thanks for the comments, that gave me a good amount to improve upon. I've gone through everything and have made my replies. I've also changed the way I reply to comments, hopefully this is less messy. AxonsArachnida (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Looking close now, added a few last comment at the bottom. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick comments. I've addressed them where possible below. AxonsArachnida (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

• The image under gigantism could need a caption, as images should have in general.
  • Added.

• "Drawing of Alicella gigantea specimen by Édouard Chevreux in 1899" Do we know he drew it? Usually drawings accompanying scientific articles were made by draughtsmen who were rarely credited. Perhaps to be safe just say "published by" or "from the original description" etc.
  • Good point. Fixed.

• The following sentences repeat some of the same info, and could be consolidated: "The genus name Alicella refers to the ship Princess Alice, which collected the first specimens in 1897. The ship itself is named after Alice Heine, who was the wife of Albert I, Prince of Monaco... This species was first described in 1899 by Édouard Chevreux from two specimens collected by the Princess Alice while on an expedition at the Madeira Abyssal Plain off the Canary Islands in 1897."
  • Reshuffled section to make this more consolidated.

• The above issue could be solved by writing the text more chronologically: the specimens are discovered, described, and named.
  • Reshuffled section.

• "However, this species was later recognized to actually be Eurythenes obesus" By who and when?
  • Added information.

• "It underwent a taxonomic revision in 1987" the preceding sentence is about another species, so specify the name of the subject of this article. Generally a good idea to do in the beginning of new paragraphs.
  • Fixed.

• "Despite their apparently isolation from the surface" apparent?
  • Fixed.

• "such as cadmium and chromium" link these terms.
  • Done.

• Does it have any common names?
  • Added.

• While the meaning of the specific name seems obvious, could it be explicitly stated anyway, if a source does so?
  • No source explicitly states it (or none that I could find). It’s rather annoying. It’s like they didn't have Wikipedia editors in mind!

• Link amphipod at first mention. All terms should be linked once at first mention in both the intro and article body.
  • Fixed.

• "is two jointed and large" two-jointed?
  • Fixed.

• One wishes there was a diagram showing all these mouth-pieces, even if just from a related species, to make the description easier to follow.
  • Theres nothing on wikicommons. I had a search for images with suitable copyrights, but nothing is available. It’s a shame. Would be great to have an "amphipod anatomy" page on Wikipedia at some point. If that's ever made, I'll link this section there.

• "article six is slightly shorter than article" than the article?
  • Fixed.

• After the sentence about the once assigned species, you could specify this genus is monotypic.
  • Done.

• Something hydrostatic pressure could link to?
  • Done.

• "A. gigantea are the largest known amphipods in the world" Why suddenly plural?
  • Fixed.

• personally, I'd give at least the year of the various studies mentioned under gigantism and other sections.
  • Done.

• Link haplotype and clade. Perhaps these terms should even be explained in parenthesis.
  • Done.

• Perhaps holotype and paratype should also be explained (name-bearing specimens or some such).
  • Done.

• For FAC, you should be consistent in whether you abbreviate author names in citations or not. Now it's mixed.
  • Fixed.

• Article titles in citations should not be in upper case, for example "Trace Elemental Analysis of the Exoskeleton, Leg Muscle, and Gut of Three Hadal Amphipods". Book titles should, though.
  • Fixed.

• You seem to use inconsistent versions of English (coloration one place, behaviour another, etc.) should be consistent.
  • Fixed.

• "is dominated by Candidatus Hepatoplasma" missing and?
  • Not a mistake, microbiologists just have weird naming conventions. "Candidatus" refers to how the genus hasn't been offically instated yet.

• Link/explain probiotic.
  • Done.

• these amphipods gut microbes" amphipod's?
  • Fixed.

• " A. gigantea ranging from 40mm to 100mm" give conversions for measurements as you do elsewhere?
  • Fixed.

• " the rough abyssal grenadier (Coryphaenoides yaquinae)." you don't give binomials for other species mentioned by common name, should be consistent.
  • Removed binomial.

• "The size of A. gigantea also allows them to avoid being preyed on by predators such as Notoliparis kermadecensis, a liparid snailfish that preys on smaller amphipods." this would seem to fit earlier where you mention the other fish that feeds on them.
  • Good point. I've shifted it.

• "can only be distinguished from other deep sea amphipods by minute anatomical differences" I assume size is also one?
  • Taxonomists haven’t really used size as a diagnostic characteristic in this species. I suspect this is because juvenile A. gigantea sizes overlap with other big amphipods. I’ve changed this sentence to say “is best distinguished” as this is the appropriate way to taxonomically distinguish them, but doesn’t imply that size is uninformative.

• "found that is has" It has.
  • Fixed.

• "Although it is rarely detected" Not seeing this stated outright outside the intro, which should not hold unique info.
  • Added into main text.

• "In 2013, the size of the whole genome has been" was instead of "has been".
  • Fixed.

• "A second species was described as Alicella scotiae in 1912 by Charles Chilton" Is it anywhere near in size, or what was this assignment based on?
  • Added this information.

• How large are its relatives in general, and the next largest relative, for comparison?
  • Fantastic question. I’ve added some detail about the size its contemporaries.

• You only give recent ideas of its phylogenetic relationship, but what were earlier ideas before genetic analysis? Taxonomic history is important for context, even though outdated.
  • Nothing beyond family assignments. I suspect this is probably because very few specimens were known until recently.

• Any synonyms or alternative combinations?
  • None.

• Anything on fossil record, evolution?
  • Nothing of relevance.

• How do they move about?
  • There’s no information specific to this species on how they move around. There will be some references to marine amphipod movement in general though. Would maybe just a one to two sentence explanation be sufficient?

Sure. If general information about a group is crucial enough to understand an individual member, I think it's fine to add for context. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Awesome. I've added two sentences in biology about how marine amphipods move.

• On possible common names, I noticed this redirect, "Hadal amphipod", does it have any merit?
  • This is more of a generic name that refers to amphipods found in hadal depths.

Hmm, should probably be retargeted then. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• The section now called "genetics" is about phylogeny/classification, and would usually be called such.
  • Done

• If you want a little more space between text and images, you could use an "unboxed" cladogram, like in Opisthotropis hungtai. FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
  • I couldn't quite get this to work properly. The template you suggested places it directly underneath the text leaving a big gap. I had a look through the other clade templates and couldn't find anything that keeps it in the current position and removes the box surrounding it. A bit frustrating really.

• Forgot to sign off on this, I think it looks nice now and could be sent to FAC, where I would support its nomination based on this review. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  Cheers @FunkMonk. I've just made the FA nomination. Thanks for all your help, you made this daunting process much simpler. AxonsArachnida (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)