Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Tardigrade

MOS:POPCULT

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

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):
    • I've responded to all of these under 'Checked', mainly by boldly replacing the text and sources to resolve the issues with new (and far fewer) sources.
  • "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

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

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]

Comments

My availability will be quite variable for the next few days, so I thought I'd leave some accumulated comments from first (re)read-through. I'm sure I'll have more to say later! Esculenta (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • what variety of English is this in? (cf. haemocoel/colourless/moults (and molts)/sclerotised/miniaturized/reorganized)
    • British English: tweaked.
  • perhaps haemocoel could be glossed with "open circulatory system"
    • Done.
  • possibly useful links: cuticle, commissure, pharynx, eyespots, clavae, detritus, salivary gland, hindgut, duct, gonopore, oviduct, rectum, ovary, substrate, fertilisation
    • Done.
  • is the suboesophageal ganglia referred to in the text equivalent to the subpharyngeal ganglion in the image?
    • Yes.
  • what's the size range of tardigrade eggs?

Ecology and life history

  • link cosmopolitan, parasites, commensals, polar, lipid, cytoplasm
    • Linked.
  • things I'm left wondering about:
  • their role in food webs: what predates on them
  • Added.
  • "More specialised habitats" seems quite interesting but unfortunately is only a short sentence long. Any more examples?
  • Extended.
  • anything about population dynamics, including any known population
  • See next, which gives figures.
  • fluctuations in response to environmental conditions; how population densities vary between different habitat types (the article currently only gives density figures for soil and moss)
  • That seems pretty good for a general article really.
  • biogeography: do certain tardigrade species commonly co-occur? are there some species that are found on all continents? Where is the most continental biodiversity known to occur?
  • Added a paragraph on biogeography.

Environmental tolerance

  • links: metabolism, environmental stress, morph, payload, microgravity, cosmic radiation
    • Done.
  • "900 metres per second" "1.14 gigapascals" needs imperial conversions (for consistency)
    • Done.

Taxonomic history

  • links: formal description
    • Done.
  • Kleiner Wasserbär, Bärtierchen should be in lang template for best MOS practices
    • Done.
  • C.A.S. Schulze Carl or Karl?
    • Both; K was his birth name, so C may have seemed smarter or more international perhaps.
  • "set up the class" (x2) sounds a bit odd to my ear
    • Edited.

Evolution

  • links: stem group, divergence, clade, dinocaridids, morphology (on first instance), body plan, molecular/genomic, sister, phylogeny, molecular marker
    • All done.
  • "90 million years old" abbreviate mya here (it's used later on)
    • Done.

Genomics

  • links: megabase pairs, generation time, cryopreservation
    • Done.
  • how many tardigrades have had genomes sequenced?
    • It seems not many; apart from the two named, Milnesium tardigradum, and apparently few if any others as complete genomes; but it's hard to prove a negative.
  • the Kamilari et al. (2019) is currently used to source a generalisation about trehalose, but it seems that some of the conclusions from the actual research presented in the paper might also be used to beed up this section.
    • Extended 'Damage protection proteins' using Kamilari.
  • Also, doi:10.1111/ede.12457 could be used to illustrate how genomic studies across different tardigrade groups help reconstruct the evolution of their genome, and how genomic studies reveal pathways to miniaturization
    • Added; the latter is just a prediction in the paper. As the material fits well with the Hox gene discussion and diagram, I've merged the Hox material into 'Genomics' and moved that as a subsection of 'Evolution'.
  • doi:10.1146/annurev-animal-021419-083711 this 2022 open access review by Arakawa has a section "History of tardigrade genomics" that could help beef up this brief section.
    • Added to 'Damage protection proteins'.

In culture and society

The quality of this section seems to drop relative to the other sections. It seems like a loosely organized collection of factoids. I'm not against having this sort of section (it seems particularly applicable to this group), but it would be better if addition scholarly sources could be used, and if there was an underlying thematic flow to the examples presented. A couple of source suggestions (found these by searching Google Scholar for: tardigrade "popular culture", but there's more):

  • from doi:10.1080/00277738.2016.1169034 "tardigrada" a nomination for "Trade Name of the Year", and also "In Cosmos, Neil deGrasse Tyson called Earth “the planet of the tardigrades.” "
    • Well, let's try that; it's also somewhat factoid, but the implication would be that we suppress the film/tv listicle, barring the Star Trek thingy which is already robustly sourced. Let's add the next items and then see what sense can be made of the remaining materials then.
  • from "The Routledge Handbook of Star Trek" (2022), doi:10.4324/9780429347917-53, available here: "DSC’s first season incorporates Ripper, a ‘giant space tardigrade’. As Michael Burnham (Sonequa Martin Green) explains, Ripper can “incorporate foreign DNA into its own genome via horizontal gene transfer. When Ripper borrows DNA from the mycelium, he’s granted an all-access travel pass” (DSC 1.05, 2017). Although this process is scientifically inaccurate, it still helped to elevate common knowledge of the tardigrade from Internet meme to a more generally recognisable animal (see Ch 56).1 The tardigrade became the subject of various explanatory articles thanks to DSC’s fictional interpretation of its unique real-world genetic properties in propelling both the show’s narrative and its spore drive".
    • Added ref.
    • Comment I don't know if it counts as more scholarly, but I added [6] for Sheldrake at one point and it was removed, possibly in a "one thing, one ref" - trimming. If memory serves, Tyson was in there at one point, but was removed as it read like "Tyson once mentioned them on a tv-show. ([7][8])" On Star Trek, isn't The Biologist ref scholarly enough? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess what we're after is a 'red thread' that leads us through the section. W do have one such already, cited to both Brenner 2020 and Murphy 2023, the fact that their survival traits have made them popular; and we also have multiple RS for their "adorable" charisma. I've restored the Gilbert 2023 ref for Sheldrake, and added a quote from his song lyrics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • You cut my Marvel, damn you![FBDB] I still want to keep it, university press etc [9][10][11] (and NYT, of course) have noticed. Not sure the none-free Ripper pic will be allowed to stick, but good effort. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Many thanks. I've kept the strongest items, where there has been something of scientific interest to say about the entries, so as a) to delistificationise (thankyou, Mr Bush) the section, and b) to have something which is going to be of interest to scientific article readers. The goal as always is to provide the smallest possible number of examples to make the point (science of tardigrades has emerged into popular culture). We now have three examples which is close to the maximum one can have before listcrufticationiseration takes over, as a million articles amply demonstrate. I'm fairly used to defending NFURs, and am well aware of the predatory tardigradacious rampagings of the anti brigade. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tardigrade