Talk:Stramenopile

References to 'Patterson' and 'Cavalier-Smith' need to have their full names, a date (publication) and the briefest appositive "British biologist" or better, in order to make sense to us boobs. User:Wetman.

Indeed they should, but I am only one person, and not an expert in the field. Patterson and Cavalier-Smith are both prominent names in protistology, but it is difficult for me to say exactly how prominent and to find exact papers. Help would be greatly appreciated, if anyone is more familiar with the material. Josh

One good overview of the state of eukaryote taxonomy is [1]. If I'm reading it correctly, the stramenopile (= heterokont) group is well-supported, but the grouping of heterokonts, haptophytes, and cryptomonads into Chromista is much more controversial. If so, then merging this article with heterokont would make sense. But we should generally focus on what is well established, and be a bit cautious about how we treat new results which haven't yet faced the test of time. Kingdon (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have gone ahead and made Stramenopile a redirect to heterokont. Stramenopiles (with an s) has been a redirect for a long time, and whatever disputes there might be about any of these groups, I haven't seen anything to suggest that stramenopile means something different from heterokont. The heterokont article already covers everything which had been at Stramenopile. Kingdon (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I propose, per the discussions at Talk:Heterokont and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Stramenopile or Heterokont?, where there appears to be broad consensus for a merger, and for it to be in this direction, that we should merge Heterokont into Stramenopile, which is agreed now to be a synonym, whatever the subtleties may have been in the past as "Heterokont" shifted in meaning taxonomically. I note that suggestions in this direction have been made on the different talk pages since 2008, so it is time to complete the merge now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Support. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Stramenopile or Heterokont? for reasoning. —  Jts1882 | talk  20:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Support! So happy to see so much agreement. ☽ Snoteleks ☾ 22:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Support. After reading the discussion at ToL, I concur that this merger is good and necessary. Happy editing. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2023 (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.

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

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 15:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Good morning Chiswick Chap, I'll take this review and do my best to make it expedient. I will hopefully have placed all relevant comments within the next few days, but I hope you'll forgive me if I'm more thorough than usual since this is my first full review in a while. Fritzmann (message me) 15:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

1. Well-written
   1. Link "flagella" in the first paragraph, perhaps
      1. Done.
   2. I may be misunderstanding the taxonomy (I am by no means an expert), but in the first sentence it says that the clade is distinguished by tripartite hairs. However, in the second paragraph of the lede it states that many Stramenopiles like Diatoms do not have tripartite hairs. Is this normal, or should it be explained briefly in the introduction? From my reading, this seems to be what the second sentence is alluding to - perhaps the examples could be merged into that sentence to make it apparent that this is the same phenomenon?
      1. Well, plants are distinctively photosynthetic, but of course we can find some species that aren't, having list that ancestral trait..... I've added an explanation.
   3. A brief introduction of the Heterokont problem in the lead might be welcome, maybe even something like that first sentence of the history section
      1. Added.
   4. "The name "stramenopile" has been discussed by J. C. David." should it not be discussed in this article?
      1. We have the key points of the names and history here.
   5. "many not been previously considered as 'heterokonts'," unsure of the sentence structure here but the grammar doesn't sound quite right
      1. Good catch, edited.
   6. I think repeating some or all of the taxon links in the second paragraph of the heterokont section may be helpful to the reader even though they were already linked once in the lead
      1. Added several.
   7. Link "axoneme"
      1. Done.
   8. "..distinctive 9 peripheral couplets and two central microtubules changes into the nine triplet structure of the basal body" may be somewhat difficult for a layman to understand
      1. Reworded.
   9. Are there other clades that possess stramenochromes/ chromoplasts and use them in this same way? Also "chromoplasts" could stand to be linked as well
      1. No. Linked.
   10. "opalines and proteromonads live in the intestines of cold-blooded vertebrates and have been called parasites." Is there doubt as to whether they are actually parasites? Who is calling them parasitic?
       1. Edited. Many gut organisms do mo harm, indeed many are helpful.
2. Verifiable
   1. Reference list well-formatted, all refs are inline
      1. Noted.
   2. Random checks of refs 27 and 15 did not yield any glaring mistakes
      1. Noted.
   3. However, was difficult to verify because of the wide page ranges of some pretty lengthy articles. Just wondering if it would be appropriate to have the page range in the reference direct one to specifically to the pages where the information was retrieved
      1. Standard practice is to cite whole articles.
3. Broad
   1. Only thing I was wondering is whether the synonyms listed in the taxobox could be expounded upon briefly in the history section - particularly the ones very similar in spelling to stramenopile. Were these just orthographical errors or was there actual disagreement on how the clade should be spelled?
      1. I'd say the minor variations in spelling are insignificant, didn'tcome across any evidence to the contrary.
4. Neutral
   1. The author does not appear to have any particular agenda dealing with a clade of peculiar little eukaryotes
      1. Indeed not.
5. Stable
   1. No edit warring in recent article history, article is stable
      1. Noted.
6. Illustrated
   1. Is File:Ochromonas.jpg (in the infobox) an illustration based on a particular description or previous image? It seems like a colored-in version of a previous file, but that original uploader didn't say what their reference was for drawing the diagram
      1. I suspect they just drew the little beastie under their microscope. Many biology drawings are of this type.
   2. The Cafeteria roenbergensis images look great
      1. Thank you!
   3. Perhaps in the caption of the giant kelp image it could be mentioned that it is representative of the multicellular clades of the Stramenophiles - it took me a minute to puzzle out the relevance of the image
      1. Added a gloss to the caption.
   4. I'm going to assume all the images in the cladogram are properly licensed instead of checking all of them
      1. Noted. Most are the lead images for their taxa.
   5. Similar input for the Paraphysomonas butcheri image as for the giant kelp - the caption is good information but I personally feel like having it explain what feature of the taxon the pictured species represents would be more digestible by a reader. I hope I'm making that clear enough, let me know if it requires more clarification.
      1. The first sentence of the caption explains this.

Well I wasn't expecting to do the whole thing in one sitting but here we are. After you've addressed my nitpicks I'll run back through the article one more time and then it should be good! Thanks for yet another very nice looking article. Fritzmann (message me) 16:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for the helpful review. I'm away from my desk so may be a bit slow but I'll be as prompt as possible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well I didn't expect to get through this at a sitting either, but here we are. Thanks again for the review.

 Y With Snoteleks not having any pressing concerns and all of my comments addressed, GA pass! I'm glad this was uncontroversial, the article is certainly of high enough quality for GA. @Chiswick Chap: if you have any future projects that become neglected at GAN please don't hesitate to drop me a ping, I'm always happy to perform a review. Fritzmann (message me) 16:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Some suggestions since I'm not the GA reviewer but I also want what's best for this article (but right now I can't contribute to it comfortably from where I am writing this):

• Chromoplast/stramenochrome as the term for stramenopilous chloroplasts could use a reference, because currently the page chromoplast states that it's just a kind of chloroplast found in regular plants.
• The phylogeny section could maybe be renamed to Evolution since it talks about its evolutionary history from common SAR ancestors (and maybe we could add a fossil subsection to it), and the classification subsection could be a separate section of its own,
• I would also add that, in the external evolution area, I think there are other hypotheses than a single event of endosymbiosis between the last SAR common ancestor and a red alga. We should probably add those too? I bet there's a lot of papers that discuss the common stramenopilous ancestor too. In the Labyrinthulomycetes#Evolution page I added a reference to the secondary loss of plastids within Stramenopiles as part of the text and cladogram, maybe mentioning the secondary plastid losses here could come in handy too.
• I am dying to change the main internal cladogram. If I can I will do it myself ASAP but for now I have to stress that the Silar (2016) thing is not even a paper, it's an educational book, and Ruggiero (2015) is just a taxonomical classification scheme. I referenced Thakur et al. (2019) in classification, which is a much more appropriate source as a recent phylogenetic analysis. Another example is Cho et al. (2022) from the Gyrista#Phylogeny page. Please, anything but "Ruggiero & Silar". I suffer. —Snoteleks 🦠 18:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Maybe hold off till after the GA as we can't edit in multiple directions at once. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Chiswick Chap Of course, GA comes first —Snoteleks 🦠 08:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Snoteleks: in your opinion, would any of those factors hold the article back from GA status? I think points one and three could stand to be included now that they have been brought up, but even without them it seems to me as a layman reader the article is broad enough in its coverage (for GA) as is. Two and four seem much more preferential, and I feel like those could be sorted out in discussion after the GAN. Fritzmann (message me) 01:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Fritzmann2002 As someone heavily indulged in the subject, I am aware my suggestions are very nitpicky for a layman reader. They definitely are not meant to be part of a GA review and do not hold back the article from GA status. I wrote them mainly to not forget about them, because I would like to implement them. —Snoteleks 🦠 08:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Then I think the GA is complete, and the uncontroversial items can go ahead afterwards. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply