Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Antarctic krill/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Antarctic krill

The article is online since March 2002 and gives basic information about the ecology of the most successful animal species of the planet, backed with images, animations, and links to free reading material and high resolution images on Wikisource and an interactive virtual microscope and a webserver with in-depth information. The article is very often used by schools and universities all over the world, as we know from feedback - we use it as teaching material in our new proposals for a Virtual_University - I contributed much of the article - Uwe Kils 14:19, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Object--very short article, far too many pictures for that small amount of text. Where's the beef? Meelar (talk) 14:34, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object.Agree with above, plus links in the text should be footnoted. No references. Giano | talk 14:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is improving, and becoming very interesting, but it does need proper references, or is this own research? Giano | talk 21:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you make it clear, is the literature section in fact references for this work, if so, and they are then labeled as such, I will change to support. Giano | talk 12:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hallo Giano - put links in the text to refs Uwe Kils 20:16, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
hallo Giano - thank you - most is own research but i will work on refs - take care Uwe Kils 22:41, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
there is a link to 43 references about krill in the article, some given in full, and for those who want to read more text there are 4 full works from 3 authors on Wikisource linked - we tried to get copyright permission from other authors for the project but they wouldn't / couldn't give it - we think that direct links in the text are much more practical for educational work than confusing footnotes, which make articles only longer - Uwe Kils 15:06, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
*Oh please! I would love to support this, BUT until it has a section titled references (from which the page is sourced) I cannot support. I am fascinated by the page, I love the animations - believe me - I am sure it is accurate and true, and indeed the last thing in Krills but this encyclopedia is written by unknowns. Hence, more than any other work it has to be reliably referenced otherwise it is unreliable. Please see this or else withdraw this excellent article. Just put in a reference section called "references" Giano | talk 20:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I put in "references" - did you see what Britannica and Encarta have about krill?

SUPPORT This is very different from the usual featured article format, but it is good. It explains in depth most of what (I would imagine) students of the subject need to know. I thought I was totally disinterested (still not riveted) by the subject, yet it held my attention to the end, and I have learned something. So in spite of being a little unconventional in its style and format, I have changed to support, now that it is reliably referenced. I would ask other objectors to give it a second read and see it accordingly for what it is, something well written and informative, on a subject little referred to elsewhere. Giano | talk 18:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. The article is certainly not comprehensive; it is too short to possibly incorporate material from the 43 works mentionned above as "references", and does not follow standard formatting and style guidelines. Phils 19:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Article isn't properly referenced. Contains too many pictures and too little text. You don't need copyright permission to retell information from any of these 43 sources and copying (for which you would need that) would make for a very dull article. Please expand and follow the FA criteria as they are. Mgm|(talk) 20:04, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
thank you for your responses and time. Sometimes the art is to make information short, with pointing to larger volumes. Where are the rules how much media should be used in a wikipedia article? Space is on the harddrives enough. "An image says more than a thousand words". The article was once longer - I could have easily dumped text from scripts I still have from the times I lectured at the universities about krill or pasted from the 150 pages from articles with my students given at wikisource, but we wanted to keep it here condensed. The images and animations are considered as additional already, nobody is forced to scroll down on the page - as far as we know, the upper part of the page is formatted ok - otherwise please help us - keep up with your fine work Uwe Kils 14:16, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Article is incomplete and poorly formatted. Morwen - Talk 16:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
hallo to England - hallo Abigail! formatting is a matter of style and personal taste - we used it the way it is many years in teaching, and we got much feedback, very positive, from all over the world - if today wikipedia articles need all to be very huge and thus confusing, all alike looking, thats a matter of another taste. We like big images and videos, as we have on our teaching servers since the haydays of the web, now giving away for the great ideas of wikis and joint creations - keep up with your fine work, we like your great images of England - Uwe Kils 17:50, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: So that's how you like it fair enough. But for an article to be featured here. It needs to be comprehensive and follow Wikipedia's criteria for featured articles. It's not a matter of personal opinion. Mgm|(talk) 21:16, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Guten Tag mgm! Danke für den Kommentar - in Allem ist persönlicher Geschmack - und wir können alles diskutieren, über alle Grenzen und Alter hinweg - ich werde Eure Hinweise hier besprechen. Ich hab schon etwas mehr Text hineingetan. Ist ja auch nur ein Versuch, und Diskussion ist immer gut - viele herzliche Grüsse über den Atlantik Uwe Kils 22:50, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Please note that most Dutchmen don't speak German particularly well. German and Dutch languages are related, but not enough for it to be mutually understandable. Mgm|(talk) 04:50, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
sorry - but you have on your user page a tab that you do speak German - was not so important anyway, I just tried to be friendly and cooperative - I contribute much more n the Englishserverside than on the German, but I note what you wrote Uwe Kils 12:06, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Dear review group, I addressed the objections that were raised, thank you very much for the advice - it would be nice if you would take another look at Antarctic krill - best greetings Uwe Kils 03:51, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Still object, although improving. Seems to use a lot of highly technical language that might confuse the reader; also has somewhat poor grammar that makes it tough to read. Much improved from its original state, though. Someone else should check on references, as I'm not sure exactly how they're supposed to be formatted. Meelar (talk) 14:56, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Despite the imporvements made recently - which were admirable - it is 'still' too much pretty pictures, too little useful content. Actionable stuff: make the captions longer with more explanation. And take out some of the photos. They just get in the way for some of the article, and (no offence but) more photos of krill is less useful to the typical user than more info. on krill diet, lifecycle, migration patterns, contribution to ecosystem etc. Hope this is not too harsh, cos the article has promise, but it needs work. Batmanand 20:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Most criticisms answered. More about migration, which I thought was a big part of the krill life (if its not tell me and I'll remove this criticism) is the only thing still remaining. Oh, and the compund eye bit: it says "electron microscope" a bit randomly. Do you mean the photo is an electronmicrograph? If so, change that. IF not, clear up what it does mean. But overall, my object is now very very weak. Batmanand 08:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) All criticisms answered> good work. Now support (and will shut up about migration lol). Batmanand 13:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
changed electron microscope - The krill schools drift with these watermasses, and it is one stock all around Antarctica with gene exchange over the whole area. There is not much knowledge about migration patterns because it is not possible to put tags on krill yet.Uwe Kils 13:01, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)


hallo Batmanand - thank you for the comment - we submitted the article to hear critics - we are used to that in academia - will work on it, maybe take pictures to sub pages for the interested Uwe Kils 21:15, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
moved the images of the filtering basket to a sub page Uwe Kils 21:37, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hard to understand

Really like what you have done with the article, i think it could be really good but i have difficulty understanding some of it. As a native English speaker i found some of the grammar quite poor which made some of the content unintelligable. Also the choice and the way you word the sentences has made it difficult for me to understand what is being conveyed. I have made some minor edits to some of the wording but i still think it needs a bit of work. Again i think this is a good article but with better elucidation and grammar it could be a fantastic article. Yakuzai 21:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hallo Yakuzai! thank you for your comment. Please help us and change bad language. I am German and know my English is rotten - take care Uwe Kils 21:20, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)



Hi Kils. Have read through your article more thoroughly and have done some further editing. Will go through it systematically over the next week or two, really want this to be a featured article! Here are some initial thoughts on the introduction:

1. The bit about the step between prey and predator is hard to understand maybe you could write this up more thouroughly in the ecosystem section and erase it from introduction.

2. In the section Systematic are you trying to give an account of what distinguishes the Antartic Krill from others of the same order? If so i Think you need to state that and also have a link for the meaning of carapax and gnathapod. Peolple who don't have knowledge of technical terms like these will find it hard to understand this section. I made an edit of this section myself but i need to clarify whether you are trying to say that the visibility of the gills is due to the thoracomers on each side of the carapax being so short? Also whether the visibility of the gills is another distinguishing feature of this order? updated by 193.115.13.66 12:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Hopefully this is helpful for you. Yakuzai 22:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

thank you, Yakuzai, I will work on it Uwe Kils 23:27, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antarctic_krill"

  • Object (see below for new vote; this has gotten too messy). You did a great job, Uwe, but here are a few more things to consider:
    • 2½ of the three paragraphs in the section of geographic distribution actually explain stuff about the Southern Ocean. Shouldn't most of that info go there?
    • The article needs better structure. For instance, I would group "Systematic", "Development", "Food", under a heading "Life cycle", and "Bioluminiscence", "Esacpe reaction", and "The compound eye" under another heading "Characteristics". Not sure where "Filter feeding" and "Ice algae raking" would go. The rest ("Biomass", "Position in the Antarctic ecosystem", "Decline with shrinking pack ice", "The Biolgical Pump and Carbon Sequestration") could go under "Ecology", and finally "Fisheries" and "Future visions and Ocean Engineering" could again be subsumed under their own section, for which I can't come up with a good name, though. Article structure is OK now.
    • Comment only, not an objection: Some of the current sections could probably be combined.
    • The article should be proofread by a native English speaker. Could probably still be improved, but is way better already.
    • "krill is substituted by salps" — by whom? :-) Seriously: why? and what happens to salps in years where the krill population is large? This interaction could use some more explanation.
    • Fisheries – who fishes krill? I suppose primarily the Japanese, but the article doesn't say so explicitly. Are there other nations?
    • Layout problems; it just doesn't look good yet. I guess this might vanish if some restructuring is done. mostly resolved.
    • Lupo 11:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thank you, and thank you for your edits - will work on it - salps live only one year - my English is rotten, I am from Germany (as you know) but I still contribute most on the English article so many in the world can utilize it - one of my students will later make German and Danish and Norwegian translations Uwe Kils 13:01, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Some more:
  • Image:Filterkrillkils.gif is a movie (actually, an animated GIF) larger than 600kB! This increases load times tremenduously if you're on a slow line (56kbit modem). This should be de-inlined, like I did here (use [[:Image:...]] instead of [[Image:...]]). Replaced by still image + link to movie.
  • Some paragraphs just uses the term "krill" (e.g. the Fisheries section). What kind of krill is meant? Does this apply to krill in general? If so, the information should go to krill, shouldn't it?
  • The section on the biological pump could use a link to biological pump.
  • Lupo 13:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hallo Lupo - thank you for the comments - we do not know any person still on a 56k modem, and in future the speeds on the internet will again go up - those who dial in get the space empty - maybe we make an extra page with small images and no motion on one of our other servers - will change krill to to antarctic krill - good point, i will link to Biological pump, just forgot (I started that article on 18:42, Jun 4, 2003, Paul Falkowski is a coworker of mine)
"we do not know any person still on a 56k modem" – yes you do: I am :-(. And a whole lot of people that are part of our target audience are likely to be in the same situation, just think of all the third-world countries! Page design should always be done with slow connections in mind. Lupo 15:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The animation is compressed already. The wiki software is written in a way that everything loads and can be read, only then animations are loaded and will show up eventually - we ask you to please leave the animations in the article, that is more important for us (and many we asked) than getting the status "featured". We asure you we have the third world in our minds. We had the article evaluated by an academic group, forked that version off to other servers and will use that proofread stage for our third world teaching projects (and will update it again and again). Thank you all for your input and time - we will continue to make the article in Wikipedia better - one day Wikipedia (or sponsored/supplemented forks) will hold content proofread enough to become serious teaching resources even for science classes - we still dream of a Virtual University free for all and worked up by many cooperative all over the world - good luck to all of you who helped with comments and edits on this demonstration article about a remarkable organism Uwe Kils 17:24, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Much better now. Thanks to all who helped. However, I still have some points:
  • Development: What was the "Discovery-expedition"? Was the ship called Discovery? Or was it sponsored/initiated by a magazine called Discovery?
  • Development: "The next two larval stages [...] do not eat but are nourished by the yolk." What does that mean? Do the first nauplius eat? And all this is after hatching. Where does the yolk come from? Do they carry it with them after having hatched, or how is this meant? And if they don't eat, how do they feed on the yolk? Or do they eat the yolk, but not yet phytoplankton?
  • Development: The text says "at a depth of 2000 m", the image caption claims 3000 m. Should probably be 2000 - 3000 m in both cases.
  • Fisheries: do the Japanese fish other krill besides Antarctic krill?
  • Fisheries: "The products are used largely in Japan for feeds."—do you mean "animal food"?
  • Fisheries: "great loss of the krill's moisture"—I can't quite make sense of that, though I think I understand what is meant. Maybe "great loss of the krill's internal fluids"?
  • Fisheries: "One aim, involves splitting the muscular hind part from the front part and separating the chitin armor, in order to produce frosted products and concentrate powders."—Sorry, I can't parse that sentence.
  • Not an objection, comment only: Future visions and Ocean Engineering: that is very interesting, but I perceive this paragraph as rather one-sided (maybe that's just me, though). I would worry about the long-term effects of such ecosystem tampering in search of a cheap way out of our non-sustainable lifestyle with its overproduction of Greenhouse gasses.
  • I'm sorry to say so, but that movie is a show-stopper for me. How about producing a still image from one frame of the movie and showing that, and linking the full movie in the image caption? Did this myself.
Lupo 11:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thank you, Lupo, for your extensive work. I changed most of your extra points. We have the environmental concerns a lot, thats why I wrote "no knowledge" - I would like to add more critics, but then it would be POV - the intelligent reader will do that on her own we trust - best greetings Uwe Kils 13:08, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral now. If the two points not yet resolved above (explanation of the Discovery-expedition and better explanation of this yolk business) are amended, I'll support. Lupo 14:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I changed the two points Uwe Kils 15:38, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I've rewritten the difficult systematic section to be more intelligible to the non-specialist, and I would now support this interesting article - perhaps pleopod could be explained also. jimfbleak 05:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor Object- first, I agree with Lupo that those two points need to be clarified. Second, some of the in-text external references are formatted differently from others (i.e., some are superscripts, some not)- is that supposed to be like that? Third, I would like to see the section on the compound eye expanded a bit. Though it says we understand very little about it, another sentence or two explaining why it is fantastic,etc., wouldn't hurt. Otherwise, the article has improved immensely- everyone keep up the good work! Flcelloguy 15:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I changed the three points, I just do not know what more to write about the eye, nothing is known, I just thought it would be nice to share the beauty of the structure with others, just click on the eye three times Uwe Kils 15:38, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor object, the large images create too much white space in the article, move some of the less important ones out of the articles or to the gallery at the bottom of the page. The graphs presented in the later part of the article need better captions. The reference section should be in a format more similar to David Helvarg for example.--nixie 15:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)