Skeleton panda sea squirt 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to
participate, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project, participate in
relevant discussions, and see
lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 21:10, August 1, 2024 (
JST,
Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
A fact from Skeleton panda sea squirt appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 March 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the skeleton panda sea squirt was known on the Internet for its skeleton-like appearance years before its formal description?
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 news sites mostly mirror the scientific papers so it shouldn't be too hard to reference them to the sources directly (with the exception of FNN who directly interviewed the lead researcher on their own).
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs)
14:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)reply
To be consistent with other sea squirt articles, the lede should be ascidian (sea squirt) instead. Also, should the alternative name skeleton panda ascidian (Hasegawa & Kajihawa 2024, p. 53) be mentioned, either in the lede or Etymology?
anchored to the substrate Just say surface
You could split into two sentences at currents, in colonies "currents. It lives in colonies". Also with the last sentence: "The researches formally described it three years later."
History
formally undescribed replace "not formally described"? I can't put my finger on why I find this weird. Also, link to
undescribed taxon.
Thanks to crowdfunding efforts is colloquial. Maybe "Supported through
crowdfunding" instead?
the tunicate Replace with a simple pronoun, as most readers don't know what a tunicate is.
Add "which is" before only accessible
Four specimens were collected the holotype and three paratypes, in colonies ranging from one to four individuals. You don't have to specify this, because there is always only one holotype (link
holotype and
paratype in the next mention). Also, does one colony count as one specimen?
Add a sentence in Etymology about the origins and meaning of the colloquial name "gaikotsu-panda-hoya" from Japanese netizens (The News 2024, Hasegawa & Kajihawa 2024, p. 53). The two sentences in Etymology don't have to be separate paragraphs
Description
I'm gonna need a bit more time with this section.
Taxonomy
Link morphological and spiracles.
Clavelina ossipandae was more precisely recovered identified as the sister species of C. australis inside the genus Clavelina (found by the authors to be paraphyletic to Nephtheis) The first can just be replaced with identified,
sister species can be linked, and doesn't the last bit belong in the article for the genus instead of this one?
Distribution and ecology
known from Kume Island By "known from", do you mean "discovered in" or "living in"?
Link phytoplankton.
General
You should keep the names you're using consistent. Are you using Clavelina ossipandae, C. ossipandae, or Skeleton panda sea squirt?
There are still also citations not to the peer-reviewed paper for scientific details e.g. FFN, press release. Even if they're interviews of the author, what makes the paper reliable is that it was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Done. Guess I'll have to update the genus article!
Distribution and ecology
Done, it's indeed "living in" as all specimens have been reported there. I don't think we can be 100% sure that there are none in nearby islands, but that's the extent of our knowledge.
Done.
General
Pending. I've been trying to vary the names to avoid repeating, is it recommended to stay consistent on this point? In this case, I'll probably use Clavelina ossipandae throughout.
Pending. Sadly, a few of the details are not in the paper itself. Should I omit them entirely?
Hi! I'm still here, I was waiting for a reply from Vortex to my questions above to make the changes. Just realized that I forgot about the one in the "Etymology" section, I can do this one without doing for a reply.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs)
00:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Fritzmann2002 Just did everything except for the cladogram and the links to "oral and atrial siphon" (we don't have a glossary of tunicate anatomy yet, although I hope to create one in the future), "ovaries" (as the article is basically human-centric and doesn't mention tunicates at all) and "testicular follicles" (no article, and
testicle doesn't mention anything about tunicates either). Regarding the Japanese references, I removed the remaining translated title as I just wasn't sure if the translation was correct and didn't want to mislead.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs)
02:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Looks great! Just passed, thanks for bearing with me. Would love to review more of your stuff in the future so drop me a ping if you GAN anything else!
Fritzmann (
message me)
15:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply