Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Crinoid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCrinoid 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 9, 2019Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 13, 2019.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that crinoids (example pictured) are closely related to sea urchins and starfish?

Untitled

[edit]

This web page http://www.jeffssite.net/Fart%20facks.htm states: "The crinoid is a marine creature with a U-shaped gut, and its anus is located next to its mouth." It doesn't look like the article on Crinoids mentions this interesting piece of information. Should it?

Just added further information to this article. The new text needs links added to other articles.

Dlloyd 10:06, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some of the text added to the article was originally published by me on the Web back in 1998.

Portions of this text are :

"Copyright © 1995-1997 The Fossil Company Ltd. © 1997-1999 The British Fossil Company Inc. and licensed by the owner under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." Please contact me if you need further clarification on this.

Dlloyd 00:41, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The fossil history is fascinating but I was looking for information on the biology and ecology of feather-stars. Will there be an article on this elsewhere? I was particularly interested to discover if featherstars are considered an indicator species. I noticed a very significant decline in the number of these creatures around one of the resort islands in Fiji between 1987 and 2005. --Mylesclough 07:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might try echinoderm and see if there is anything there. This article does need a bit of updating/improving. --DanielCD 15:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I updated this page with just some simple nicknames for the small fossilized segments. I believe it to be a mostly regional thing, but if someone is familiar with their monikers in another part of the country, that'd be great.

Sorry, last comment was me. Terminall 16:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to comment, But I see that there si no part in the article mentioning their reproductive cycle, seems like they would have one, but I cannot find it here -lee 2:25 3 April 2007 (CT)

Cladida, Flexibilia, Camerata and Disparida have links to pages that don't exist. Does somebody know how to fix those links?

Note: last comment (more like question) was made by TheInprovementMan.

Aaglacrinus

[edit]

I just made a genus page Aaglacrinus but I am concerned that it might be similar to the more common (according to google hits only) Aglaocrinus. I noted the species in the genus page down as Aaglaocrinus (as my sources provided) but I thought an expert was needed to check up on whether they are the same or different. In the big list of crinoids, Aaglacrinus and Aglaocrinus are listed separately, while Aaglaocrinus is not listed at all. My guess is Aaglacrinus and Aaglaocrinus are the same while Aglaocrinus is different but as I said; any expert to look at this would be appreciated. Kind regardsCalaka (talk) 09:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I figured it out, all good! Unless anyone wants to create it first, I will make the genus from the other extinct crinoid sometime tomorrow. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"typical" crinoid fossil

[edit]

It is funny to me that someone would label File:Fossile-seelilie.jpg as "typical," when "exquisitely preserved" would be nearer the mark. Most of the time all you see are columnal fragments - that is "typical" in a crinoid fossil.Jstuby (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the wording so that "typical" modifies "crinoid" rather than "fossil", probably what the original author meant anyway. --Danger (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crinoidea

[edit]

Why isn't this article put under the scientific term Crinoidea rather than under the more common term "crinoid". To be sure, any member of the Crinoidea is a crinoid; so what.

I tried moving to Crinoidea, but was unable, apparently due to the term having been (properly) used before J.H.McDonnell (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is the more common term is probably the reason it's here. I'm not against a move, though, I don't feel qualified to meddle in invertebrate affairs. Abyssal (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syzygy

[edit]

Syzygy (disambiguation) links here, but this article fails to explain why. 86.26.14.250 (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sars

[edit]

Michael Sars's article claims that his discovery of living stalked crinoids launched the Challenger expedition that launched modern oceanography. If so, should be sourced and mentioned here. — LlywelynII 15:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

contradictn(intro

[edit]

Those crinoids which, in their adult form, are attached to the sea bottom by a stalk are commonly called sea lilies.[5] The unstalked forms are called feather stars[6] or comatulids.[7]... Crinoids usually have a stem used to attach themselves to a substrate, but many live attached only as juveniles and become free-swimming as adults.81.11.219.200 (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: I'll have a go at this. Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 11:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking up this review. I will get to it tomorrow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Since the 'Picture galleries' are all of 'Fossil Crinoids', perhaps the headings could be merged.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think each fossil image should have both age/geological period and locality in its caption.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still some left, and one is called a "fossile".
Done now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Evolution section doesn't quite say that crinoids form a clade; the Taxonomy section agrees there's just one class but doesn't show it as the base of the tree (at the top!).
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wright et al "rank-based classification" should be represented as a cladogram. This could then be illustrated with small images from (and replacing) the 'Gallery of the current families'.
I can't do cladograms. See below. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done it. It's actually not difficult if you do it a little bit at a time, just looks that way! Would be a useful skill...
Thanks! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The labels of the 'Gallery of the current families' says things like "An Antedonidae", but the family names are all plural. We normally says "An Antedonid" (etc). I guess this means writing [[Antedonidae|Antedonid]], or alternatively dropping the "A/An" and just saying "(Antedonidae)".
See below. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We rather need a simple labelled diagram of the basic anatomy.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Etymology ought to show the Greek words in Greek text.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One left.
The source I used did not have the Greek text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Predation: wikilink predator; and I think the first paragraph could be copy-edited down a bit.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In culture should say that St Cuthbert's beads were so named in the middle ages.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Crinoids are very photogenic. I think the article has far too many images and I would like to get rid of the main gallery and some of the images in the Morphology section. If we had a cladogram, we could retain many of these images at thumbnail size, but as mentioned above, cladograms are beyond my level of competence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... I see... Sorted.
Well, thank you. That is a great improvement. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

[edit]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. There is plenty of scope here for filling the many redlinked taxa, but I'm satisfied that the group as a whole is covered to a good standard.

Size inaccuracy?

[edit]

I am worried that the largest crinoid ever found size (40m) is false information. That would be longer than a blue whale, while in your “largest animals” page you cite that the biggest animal ever is the blue whale. “Biggest” is such a subjective term I know, but I am still worried that this is false info. However, I am not sure enough to make an edit, perhaps someone with more knowledge could help? 165.106.120.238 (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The french page

[edit]

the french version of Crinoidae has a LOT more data about Crinoidae, could/should we had some to the English version? It would require a Crinoid "expert" to verify the relevance of it all. I'm new to contributing, just wanted to know how we translated "feather star" in french, and.. we don't seemingly! But seeing the difference in size between the 2 I thought maybe I could contribute with translating? Thanks for whoever will read Kinonak (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]