This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animals Top‑importance Bilateria is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Animals To-do: Here are some Open Tasks : Copyedit: Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae), Requests: Mammals: Invertebrates: Campocraspedon Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration Animal anatomy High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

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

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 22:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "This means their body plans are laid around a longitudinal axis (rostral–caudal axis) with a front (or "head") and a rear (or "tail") end, as well as a left–right–symmetrical belly (ventral) and back (dorsal) surface" does this mean through the median and coronal planes respectively? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is implied, depends whether we're thinking axes and surfaces, or dividing planes as our frame of reference.

• I wonder if glossing Placozoa as simply "blob" or "blob-like animal" is more appropriate? Your decision Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. I suspect the "flat" is a confusion of 'placo-' with 'platy-'.

• "or secondary cavities that appear de novo" what does this mean? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simplified.

• "head (anterior) end" might read easier if you did "head end (anterior)" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.

• I'm seeing a mix of British and American English like "coelum" but "conceptualized" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Some of us Brits habitually use -ize ("OE"), of course.

• wikilink nephrozoans and xenacoelomorphs on first mention Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.

• "parasitic worms have extremely plesiomorphic body structures" a non-apical blob creature being called a worm is kinda weird, maybe just use helminth? Especially because the non-apical, non-worm looking ones are I think usually called flukes Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the source referring to Schistosoma? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No. I've removed the parasitic sentence. Given the debate about the urbilaterian in the next section, You're right about roundish vs flattish worms: I've demoted the wormlike animal discussion: that basically applies later, to the Nephrozoa.

• first par of Inferred nature of the ancestor missing a ref at the end Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.

• I feel like the first para needs a little more historical context since you name everyone involved in making either of the 2 hypotheses, but in the next para you don't. Like there's definitely a big history happening here, it'll just take more than a sentence to explain it properly Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extended with some more explanation of each side's point of view.

• "and more recently" what counts as recent? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase is purely relative, and as such is perfectly safe: the 21st century (or the end of the 20th) is certainly "more recent" than the 19th. This is nothing like saying "now" or "recently". I don't feel we need dates for these really.

• Seems like the taxobox caption is one specific author's point of view? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded for neutrality.

Actually, since there's quite a few ideas on what the urbilaterian looked like, I'm not sure it's the most NPOV to pick a favorite to display in the taxobox, especially since Xenacoelomorpha is the least-speciose branch of bilateria, and this isn't the urbilaterian article. I wonder if a collage or maybe a picture of a bilaterally symmetrical embryo might be more appropriate? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Added a nauplius larva, which is neutral about the urbilaterian theories. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• link deuterostome and protostome on first mention, and fix the duplinks Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked, and done.