Talk:Black coral

Black coral has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 25, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Animals Low‑importance

Black coral 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 articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-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

Marine life (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marine life, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Marine lifeWikipedia:WikiProject Marine lifeTemplate:WikiProject Marine lifeMarine life articles

Hawaii Mid‑importance

	Hawaii portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Black coral received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

A fact from Black coral appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 June 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that when boiled in milk, black coral (example pictured) emits a faint scent of myrrh?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Black coral.

Wikipedia

Cultural use

Does anyone have any information on the cultural/historical uses of black coral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.132.191 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Largest forest found in Calabria

http://www.ansa.it/site/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2009-03-19_119350685.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.193.213 (talk) 10:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 3

Reference 3 no longer exists and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darktangent (talk • contribs) 14:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate (to the Graczyk AP news-article) Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modification in Section Family

In the Family section, the genus ''Aphanipathes'' should be classified in the section Family Aphanipathidae and not in the section Family Antipathidae. This can be confirm from information obtained from these two websites:

The Global Biodiversity Information Facility: GBIF Backbone Taxonomy, 2013-07-01. Accessed via http://www.gbif.org/species/2258118 on 2015-03-27

Tina Molodtsova (2013). "Aphanipathes Brook, 1889". WoRMS. World Register of Marine Species. Retrieved 2015-03-27.

I recommend making this change and I will make the change unless someone objects. MauriGirl14 (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the genus Aphanipathes to the section Family Aphanipathidae. However, I have noticed that there are some disagreement in the correct taxonomic classification of this genus. I will leave the genus Aphanipathes in the section Family Aphanipathidae though because the taxonomic information available at the two websites that I provided in my previous comment above are the most recently updated information that I was able to find. MauriGirl14 (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get this re-reviewed for status?

I think that this article has gone past start-class. Hopefully, if it gets re-reviewed, it can go up to c-class. How do I nominate it to be re-reviewed?

Thanks! Aven Az13 (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aven Az13, anyone (including you) can reassess the article by rating it compared to the criteria listed at WP:ASSESS. Additionally, some individual projects may have further requirements (eg. an image or infobox) at certain levels. I do agree with you that the article is certainly above a "start" level, perhaps even a B. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment of the article

I have rated the article as being C-class on all wikiprojects. Though it may be comprehensive enough and well-enough witten to warrant it being a B-class, I'm going to wait until we have more sources that are more reliable. Thanks, Loopy30. Aven 00:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

I don't think you need "species that are not necessarily threatened with extinction, but may become so unless trade in specimens of such species is subject to strict regulation in order to avoid utilization incompatible with the survival of the species in the wild" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"These uncommon corals" contradicts "existing at nearly every location and depth" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"in the taxon Ceriantipatharia" it'd be more helpful if you'd specify what level Ceriantipatharia is (is it a subclass? a clade?) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"historically been used by pacific peoples" did you mean Pacific Islanders? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you use "illegal harvesting" instead of "poaching"? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"they have few morphological characteristics" did you mean "distinctive/distinguishing characteristics"? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"were placed in the Antipathes family" you meant Antipathidae User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of saying "In 2015, the current taxonomic system was implemented," you could just say something along the lines of "In 2015, [whatever the new system is]"
I think the Families section should be a subsection of the Classification & taxonomy section User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"is the Greek word" did you mean the modern Greek language or Ancient Greek? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What does "ēkaha kū moana" translate to? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You could definitely pull in a lot more academic sources. Just searching on google scholar, there's this, this, this, this, and tons more User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that's most of the easy stuff done. I'll get someone to help with the language-related questions, and I'll work on adding in more reputable sources. As for the comment about the "2015" sentence, I agree, but I'm not sure how to smoothly implement that. I'll work on it. Thank you for doing this. Aven13 11:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black coral is a pretty broad topic so I'd expect it to be pretty sizable for GA User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Language questions done, one source added. More to come. Aven13 01:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's all of the initial improvements done. I can keep working on adding more sources, but in the meantime, any comments you have about the new sections would be greatly appreciated.Aven13 19:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This looks interesting, and this, this, I don't know if this can be used to add text but it can be used to support text already here, this, this, this, this, this, maybe this, this, this, and I could probably keep going. Like I said, you picked a pretty broad topic, so it's gonna require a fair amount of reading User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 05:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you incorporate these yet? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the classification section, it could definitely be more concise. You keep saying "These seven families" but we know there're seven, so leave it at "The families". Instead of "Black corals are a group of 280 species of corals. Those 280 species are divided into seven known families, which are further divided into 44 known genera," you could drastically shorten this to "Black corals are divided into 7 families, 44 genera, and 280 species". "These seven families are separated both by their bathypelagic distribution and by physical characteristics" this is an obvious statement because there's really nothing else (except DNA) that would be used to distinguish families. The same goes for the succeeding sentences. You should instead say what makes them similar User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like this? (sorry if it's wrong.) Aven13 17:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"There are 7 families, 44 genera, and 280 distinct species of black coral.[5] The seven distinct families of antipatharians are..." you already said there're 7 families, so you don't need to say in the next sentence "The seven distinct families", and you should directly say black corals are classified in the order Antipatharia. When I said what makes them the same, I didn't mean remove "not", I meant what specifically distinguishes Antipatharia from any other order of coral? You don't need "Species in the same genus and family have similar skeletal growth patterns, polyp color and size, and spines. Genetic data has also been used in recent years to distinguish between species" because that's far too vague and really is just a basic definition of family and species. "All black coral families have a chitin skeleton, small or medium-sized polyps, and small spines along the skeleton" is good because it quickly gives specific similarities User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's done. I can add more differences if needed, but those are the main two.Aven13 12:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's good now User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's still some condensing needing to be done, like "...the coral's polyps allowing it to feed mostly on meiofauna.[2][8] It does so by stinging meiofauna such a zooplankton..." why is meiofauna explained in the next sentence? Also, what exactly is meiofauna? If you wikilink a complex term, you should still briefly explain it User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The skeleton of black coral is hard and inert, due to its composition" Why is this in the Predators section? What is its composition? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the Life cycle and reproduction section, why is there a ref in front of "However"? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do these corals eat? Typically, diet and predators are subheadings under an Ecology section User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Last sentence of Habitat is missing a ref User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"There are, however, invertebrate predators of black coral" You say this as if it's shocking breaking news User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Habitat, Anatomy, and Life cycle sections are devoid of pictures, yet you have a gallery on the bottom User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. (I hope). Aven13 17:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why were black corals named for the word "against disease"? Were they used as medicine? Briefly mention Milne-Edwards and Haime in text, giving their full names, occupations, and their reasoning for creating Antipatharia and perhaps what specimens they were looking at User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In Genera make sure to cite WoRMS, and use {{cite WoRMS}} User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When giving a measurement (such as depth), use {{cvt}} so it gives it in metric and imperial units User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think Anatomy should be its own section, and Habitat, Diet, and Predation grouped under Ecology User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"like many other colonial organisms" I thought black corals typically aren't colonial User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Most black corals require a hard surface to attach to" as opposed to nektonic or attaching to sand or what? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know why black corals prefer low-light areas? The Anatomy section suggests it has nothing to do with light User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You use consistently use "black coral" over "antipatharians" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"A layer of "bark" will have form around" first grammar, second, why are we using this tense? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly explain what a polyp is on first mention User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All easy suggestions done. I wasn't sure when to use Antipatharia vs. Black Coral, so I just used my own judgement. Aven13 18:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's best just to stick with "Black coral" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are the skeletons made out of? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Black corals instead get their name from their black skeletons, which are comprised primarily of protein and chitin.[12]" I have in the second section of anatomy. Is there somewhere else I could put it? Aven13 23:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
You're close, still a lot of unnecessarily wordy statements (like "Compared to what we know about asexual reproduction, we know little about sexual reproduction in these corals. What we do know is that sexual reproduction occurs after the coral colony is established.")

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Some unreferenced paragraphs

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Still a lot of sources out there that need to be included

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Very wordy
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Captions need some work (like "Leiopathes sp., a leiopathid" is not helpful)
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Honestly, I think this article could heavily be expanded with tons of more sources. I don't think it'll be ready and complete in good time, so I will be failing it for now. I hope to see you back here again User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Black coral/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really interesting topic, happy to take this :) I will post my comments in a week. Cheers, Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 13:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Thanks! Aven13 00:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, so I went through the earlier detailed GA review of this article, and I appreciate your efforts in addressing those issues and renominating this. I haven't read this completely, but I will keep adding comments as I notice points that should be discussed. Cheers, Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 01:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General checks

No copyvio and dablink issues
This external link is forbidden [1]

Done.

A few duplinks. You can use this tool to view them, link the terms only on their first mention.

Done.

Sourcing and citations:

The first ref is a mess. It should use Template:Cite WoRMS as suggested in the previous review

Done. (By someone else, admittedly.)

Volume number should be in bold in ref 29. Ideally you should use cite templates for ease and consistency.

Done. (By a bot.)

I don't see what purpose ref 32 serves

Done. Removed.

allowing them to catch nearly the same amount of animals without wasting energy keeping unnecessary polyps alive. Lacks inline citations

Done.

Though there are reports of parrotfish ... is gnawed off, it will not affect the coral. Not sure ref 15 supports the line earlier or the parrotfish point given its placement, what all does ref 6 support? Similar doubts for invertebrates such as muricids and ovulids[6]

Done Citations fixed for that section.

A large 1.8 meter (6 ft) tall coral tree is somewhere between 30 and 40 years old. Lacks inline citations

Done.

Lots of discrepancies in the formatting of scientific names, see refs 3 and 6 for examples. Needs an extensive check throughout the article, as there are some instances I found in the main text too

Working I fixed all of the scientific names inside of the article, but aren't the capitalizations in the citations just the titles of the articles?

Look at the scientific names in refs 5, 8, 10, 12. There are errors in capitalization and italicization. I have not checked the refs after that.

I know that I'm probably missing something (I haven't really looked at this before) but those are just the copy-and-pasted titles of all the articles. If they didn't italicize correctly, do I need to change the article title to fix it? Sorry about this being so difficult for me.

When we copy titles from sources it is our job to fix their formatting so yeah, we have work to do even after a copy-paste. Sainsf (t · c) 04:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, think I got everything. Italicized the names of specific corals, capitalized everything else. Aven13 11:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't see the required changes. See ref 2. Parantipathes larix should be in italics. Many more such problems. Case errors in ref 9. Are you sure you understand what I mean? Sainsf (t · c) 17:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was dumb and undid my own edit with the revisions. I think I fixed them now.

It would be better not to include domain names in website names, like writing "reefs.com" as "Reefs" instead.

Done

Fix the initials in refs like 20 per MOS:INITIALS

Not done All done except for ref 20. I've tried everything and it always just breaks the citation. I don't know how to fix the citation for the vauthors template.

Fixed I have changed those parameters to author1, author2 ... instead, looks ok now. Sainsf (t · c) 16:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a general note, it is recommended to use just years or month+year consistently throughout all journal citations. There are many other things you can bring consistency into like page number formats (136-137 vs 136-7), but this is not needed for GAs. However you do need to fix the dates in all citations so that they are in words and not numbers like ref 21

Done.

Prose and coverage

Lead and infobox

(the part of coral that is alive) "the" before coral

Done.

50 m (164.0 ft) I think the unnecessary zero after the decimal point can be removed by setting the sigfig parameter in the template to 3.

Done.

It reproduces both sexually and asexually throughout its lifetime Doesn't match with the plural used in the previous and following lines. If you wish to change the number then you should say "The coral reproduces..." instead of using a pronoun, though I think using singular here is not really right as we are talking about a broad group.

Done. Sorry about that.

Black corals were originally classified in the subclass Ceriantipatharia along with ceriantharians I see ceriantharians are commonly known as "tube-dwelling anemones". This can be added in brackets for easy recognition.

Done.

as medical treatment Not sure but isn't it usually "for" instead of "as"?

Done.

poor-quality specimens "specimens" may be linked to zoological specimen

Done.

Link corals on first mention in the main body (after lead)

Done. Aven13 20:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox families shouldn't be in italics

Done.

Classification and taxonomy

May be the title words should be swapped as taxonomic details are discussed before classification

I'm sorry, what do you mean by this?

My bad, I meant the section heading should probably be "Taxonomy and classification" as taxonomic details are discussed before classification. Sainsf (t · c) 12:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

The order name should start with "A", except where it is "antipatharians".

Done.

When black corals were first documented Do we know when that was, and who documented them?

Done Added.

May be I don't like redlinks that can be avoided in an article, but do we really need to link Opresko and Molodtsova? At any rate we need to introduce them (like what are their professions, or what institute or organization they belong to?) to give them some background.

Well, they're just two ordinary researchers. Molodtsova is a researcher in Moscow, and Opresko works at the smithsonian. I've added that they are marine biologists, but if you need more, let me know.

No, this looks good enough.

Done Sainsf (t · c) 12:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In 2015, Dennis Opresko and Tina Molodtsova helped to implement the current taxonomic system I am curious.. how exactly did they help? Did they create the system, or revise an earlier one?

Done added that they helped to revise the older one.

This has been confirmed by the use of genetic testing The event mentioned earlier is from 2015, and the study that confirms it is from 2007? Sounds odd. Also we can rephrase this better if we say "A 2007 phylogenetic study confirmed ..."

Done Sorry, my bad. They documented the new species from 2001-2006. I don't know where I got the old number.

Link chitin and polyp. Can you find a good one for the skeletal spines?

Done, but unfortunately, I couldn't find any good photos of the skeletal spines on the commons.

chitin skeleton, small or medium-sized polyps, and small spines along the skeleton can be shortened to "small or medium-sized polyps and chitin skeleton lined with small spines" (unless I changed the meaning by mistake)

Done.

The root of the word antipatharia, antipathes, is the Ancient Greek word for "against disease" can be shortened to "The name Antipatharia comes from the Ancient Greek antipathes ('against disease')."

Done.

In the Hawaiian language, black coral is called ʻēkaha kū moana ("hard bush growing in the sea") and is the official state gem of Hawaii. I see the name is relevant, but so might be names in other languages. Plus the state gem fact doesn't seem to fit in taxonomy though etymology can. May be we can add a cultural significance section in the article where we discuss the relevance of black corals in human culture and society? Just an idea you can consider, I am yet to read what is already there in the article on interaction with humans.

Done so I added the sentence to the human uses section, as well as adding the word in the malay language

In the image alongside the caption should say "wire-coral goby" (no caps)

Done.

Bo & al., 2009 Shouldn't it be et al without a period?

Done it should be et al, but the period should be there.

"Etymology" should ideally be a separate section before Taxonomy. Sainsf (t · c) 12:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Anatomy

Wouldn't Physical characteristics be a better name for the section? As we deal with the anatomy plus external features and measurements?

Done.

Despite its name, black coral "a" black coral

Done

unique to black coral corals

Done.

in many patterns unique to black coral, such as whip, tree, fan, or coil shaped skeletons maybe we can just say "in many patterns unique to black coral such as whips, trees, fans, or coils"?

Done

These range in size from 10 centimeters to 3 meters "These range from {{convert|10|to|300|cm|in|abbr=on}} in size" (you can also use m→ft conversion but I think a lower scale is better). Abbreviation is not necessary but makes things less wordy, just do so consistently. Make sure to use convert templates throughout the article wherever you have measurements

Done

Unresolved
This issue has not been resolved, you need to use convert templates consistently throughout the article. Sainsf (t · c) 12:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DoneI'm sorry, I don't know what I was thinking.

The name 'thorn coral' comes from the tiny spikes that are visible on the skeletons of most black corals With so much discussion on names (Antipatharia, black coral and now this one) we can make a nice Etymology section to collect these in one place. Also you can just say "most individuals" instead of "most black corals" for a change

Done I've created a small etymology subsection underneath taxonomy.

triangular shape that can vary widely How does a triangle vary?

Done

A layer of "bark" will form around the coral skeleton as it grows I feel the tense may not suit here, let's say "forms" instead. Also "around the skeleton as the coral grows" sounds better.

Done

Remove the polyp link here and use it on first mention in the main text (I think I said it in a point above so this one will actually have become a duplink).

Done

live inside of this bark "of" is redundant

Done

The polyps that live inside of this bark are less than 2 mm [11] and gelatinous and have six tentacles (unlike most other corals which have eight) Can rephrase as "The polyps that live inside this bark, less than 2 mm, are gelatinous and have six tentacles (unlike most other corals which have eight)".

Done (Mostly, I thought that "Inside this bark, less than 2 mm" could confuse the reader into think we were talking about the bark.)

Link hermaphroditic

Done

These factors lead to sediment tearing the soft tissue of black corals and killing them Better rephrase as "These factors can lead to sediment tearing the soft tissue, resulting in death". Note that a frequent mention of "black corals" is not necessary.

Done. All that's done for now. Aven13 12:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will let you work on this set of points for now, and I have divided them into subheadings for convenience. These are not major issues, they mostly deal with the way of presentation and in places with coverage. I really appreciate your work on this difficult article and so far it has been a pleasant read. Let me know your progress as you reply to the comments. Cheers :) Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 16:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing (don't forget the two unresolved points above), Sainsf (t · c) 17:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology

Though black corals occur all throughout the oceans "all throughout" sounds more or less like "throughout" to me. "Throughout all the oceans" could give us more information if that is what you mean

Done.

Missed this point earlier, you should be consistent in calling them "black corals" (and not "antipatharians" except in Taxonomy) throughout the article.

Done.

The sole oceanic area in which antiptharians have not been found are brackish waters This is a contradiction to "all throughout" mentioned earlier and "existing at nearly every location and depth" in the lead.. the wording in Habitat should be altered and the lead should include the exception.

Done.

(organisms smaller than macrofauna but larger than microfauna) Not sure this explanation helps much, it presents two more similar new terms to a lay reader

Done.

continental slopes, cliffs, caves, or undersea plateaus We can have a few links here\

Done.

Polyp is a duplink in Diet

Done.

Link cnidarians

Done.

A short explanation of "oral disk" would help as it is a redlink

Done added that it functions as a mouth for the coral.

Though there are reports of parrotfish ... gnawed off, it will not affect the coral. Rephrase as "There are rare/few reports of parrotfish and butterflyfish gnawing and eating at the polyps of black corals, and even if a polyp is gnawed off, it will not affect the coral".

Done.

The skeleton of black coral is hard and inert "a black coral"

Done.

Though there have been reports of black coral...eaten by any vertebrates Conclusion made by whom? It may be infrequent but green sea turtles and sharks are evidently vertebrates that eat these corals, so "Not eaten by any" is surely erroneous. A good rephrase for more concise wording may be "Though black coral skeletons have been found in the stomachs of green sea turtles and sharks, these incidents are rare; it has thus been suggested that black corals are not eaten by any vertebrates".

Done.

Italicize the scientific names in the next para

Done.

Link mollusc

Done.

and the eat the tissue What does it mean, and what tissue?

Done.

Mimic can be linked to mimicry

Done.

of black coral, little is known about its life cycle corals, its→their

Done.

Why is leiopathid in italics in the caption?

Done fixed.

We know little about sexual reproduction in these corals "we know" is not encyclopedic, rather say "little is known" or "there is not much information about", whichever is less repetitive in the article

Done.

Add links for eggs, sperm, metamorphoses

Done.

It will then begin to bud, which will create new polyps, which will eventually form a colony "which will" is repetitive

Done.

Sexual reproduction occurs after 10 to 12 years 10-12 yrs of what?

Done.

The male to female polyp ration is 1:1 ratio?

Done.

You mean oocyte"s"?

It was redirected before, did you mean for me to fix that?

However, in March 2009, scientists ...the order of thousands of years" Wording needs improvement. More like "However, in March 2009 around 4,265 years old specimens of Leiopathes glaberrima were found at depths of nearly 300 to 3,000 m, making them some of the oldest living organisms on earth. The researchers showed that the "that individual colony longevities are on the order of thousands of years"".

Done.

they will grow too large It should be clear whether "they" refers to the old black corals just discussed or black corals in general

Done.

Once again italicize scientific names in next para

Done.

nearly 60% passed through the bed at some time I am not sure I understand this

Done just decided to get rid of it, as it wasn't really necessary.

was observed to be common "has been observed"
Not sure how this last paragraph fits into the "Life cycle and reproduction" section.

Done Yeah, I don't know why I had it there either. I made a new section called "interaction" but if there's a better name, please tell me.

Human use and harvesting

Many Indo-Pacific people You mean peoples if you refer to several communities?

Done.

black coral is not ideal "corals are not"

Done.

However, black coral is not ideal ...and break Should be connected to the preceding jewelry line. Also "coral" is repeated too often in this line

Done.

It can be determined if a sample is true black coral or not by boiling it in milk. This will cause true black coral to emit a faint smell of myrrh "a true black coral", again this phrase is repeated. Also these lines should be combined to reduce length

Done.

where harvesting has been conducted since "where they have been harvested since". I'm not sure if harvesting is "conducted", I have heard "harvesting is done" more often (see next line too)

Done.

Despite better management in Cozumel You mean "improvements in management"?

Done.

Though it is still possible to ...(CITES) I would see a contradiction if it were the other way round instead, that despite the listing purchase is allowed. Also, use the plural (corals) here

Done.

Threats

on the IUCN endangered species scale You mean the IUCN Red List?

Done.

under 50 cm "less than"

Done.

primary global threat to antipatharians primary threat "worldwide" would be less repetitive

Done.

black coral rarely builds "corals rarely build"

Done.

A Bathypathes species sounds better in the caption

Done.

Okay but I didn't mean you should remove the rest of the caption, which I have restored now. And I forgot to mention this.. I suggest moving the pic to the right as it squeezes the references section as it is now. Sainsf (t · c) 16:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That should be it. A lot of work for a GA review, but hopefully we can sort this out in a week or maximum 10 days. Otherwise, if you are unable to manage time, it would be better to fail this and renominate when it is all done. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 17:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sainsf: Okay, I think that's everything. One of the points above I wasn't sure about, but all grammar, prose, and inline citations have been done (except for the "scientific names" thing). Aven13 17:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final checks

Okay so given the large number of points we have dealt with in this review, I thought of reading through the article once again to make sure everything looks fine now and no issue has been missed (including those raised in the previous review). I have made some edits here and there to improve the prose and formatting, please go through them to see what the problems were and check if I messed up anything. Here are my final comments: Sainsf (t · c) 13:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and are expected to continue continue doing what?

Done declining in number.

Black corals have many different names Before this a reader would be interested to know why they are called "black corals" in the first place. You can shift this Despite its name, a black coral... composed of protein and chitin from later in the article to here, just make sure it is not repeated in the article. Also, you say "many different" names but mention just one.

Done changed to "several". When I say many, I mean the names in other languages as well.

When I said "Can you find a good one for the skeletal spines?" I meant a good link for "spines" in lined with small spines

Not done No, unfortunately. Since its a very minor thing that only appears on a few corals, there's no article for it.

What would be really helpful as images in the classification section are pics of representatives of different families with their names arranged in a nice vertical gallery (see Help:Pictures#Co-aligning) alongside the list. As it is the one pic there does not really serve any role.

Done! Great idea. I've had to re-use some photos (because there isn't a wealth of them), but I also found one showing the spines of the coral.

Well done, links should have been added and the capitalization should have been fixed which I have done now. You should remember that you shouldn't say just "black coral", it is like saying "fur of cat is smooth" instead of "fur of a/the cat is smooth". I like the skeleton comparison pic in Taxonomy, but it would look best if placed in Characteristics. The goby pic is not really adding much to the article I feel so you can remove it. Sainsf (t · c) 04:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

as small as 1 millimeter in size Convert template

Done.

In the convert templates you can add a "|sigfig=" parameter and set it to 3, so that needlessly precise measurements like "2 mm (0.079 in)" can be fixed (to "0.08 in" here for example).

Done.

Link protein in Physical characteristics

Done.

Link salinity in Habitat. Currents can be linked to something like ocean currents if that is what you mean.

Done.

Why are muricids and ovulids italicized?

Done. I don't know.

It then consume the polyps from the inside out You say "these mollusks" (plural) in the previous line

Done.

Link vertebrate, invertebrate and predation

Done.

Say either mollusk or mollusc consistently

Done.

it has thus been suggested that black corals are not eaten by any vertebrates I still don't understand how one can conclude that no vertebrate eats the corals just because such incidents are rare.

Done I changed the wording; "it has thus been suggested that black corals are not a major part of any vertebrate diets".

You don't need ref 8 after butterflyfish and ovulid if it covers the whole part (the whole 1st para and half of the 2nd para in Predators). As it is it seems refs 8 supports just butterflyfish and ovulids as examples, plus it doesn't look good to have refs mid-text (compared to after a comma or a period) unless necessary.

Done.

Link crustaceans, bivalves

Done.

Like my point under Threats (MOS:IMAGELOCATION), the parrotfish and leiopathid pics seem to be squashing the text a bit.

Done I moved them both to the right, and they don't seem to be squashing it as much anymore.

One of them was still a bit problematic so I fixed it using Template:Clear. Sainsf (t · c) 04:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any good link you can think of for "Indo-Pacific peoples"?

Done Although there are too many cultures for one page, I linked the geographic region.

It can be determined if a sample is true black coral or not by boiling it in milk, which will emit a faint smell of myrrh. Not worded well. Not clear when the myrrh smell comes, when it is a real coral or when it is not. Again, "a" true black coral

Done split it into two sentences, one about how it can be tested, and one about boiling it in milk.

Thanks, much better.. I combined them to form a single line. Sainsf (t · c) 17:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments: I am happy with the changes made to the article, and I believe it meets all the GA criteria now. There still is a suggestion above about the skeleton image which would be good to implement but it is not mandatory for this to pass as GA. Thank you for all your hard work and congrats on your first natural history GA! Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 17:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Yoninah (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Deep-sea Antipathes dendrochristos

... that boiling black coral (example pictured) in milk will emit a faint scent of myrrh? Source: [2]
- ALT1:... that some deep-sea black corals (example pictured) can live to be thousands of years old? Source: [3]

Reviewed: Not required as this is my first DYK.
Comment: This is for the article on an order of corals that recently passed GA.

Improved to Good Article status by Aven13 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I'm starting this review now, will get back once it's done. Yakikaki (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New enough (promoted to GA on 25 May), long enough and certainly within policy; it's a well-written article. Picture is public domain. Nominator writes it's their first DYK, so no QPQ needed. Both hooks are hooky and supported by inline citations. Regarding ALT1 however, I wonder if it would not be more correct to write "... that some deep-sea black corals" given that the source used to support the claim doesn't state that this is true for all black corals? So I'd say it's good to go for original hook, but needs a "some" in ALT1 for that hook to work out really well. Good work on the article, by the way! Yakikaki (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, I've added the "some". Thank you!

Great, good to go for ALT1 now as well. Yakikaki (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]