Talk:Triangulopteris

Not monotypic

To my surprise, it turns out there's already a second species described, Triangulopteris scaposa (Dürrschmidt 1987) Nicholls 2023. I will try to update the article accordingly, and create separate articles for both species. — Snoteleks (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Snoteleks (talk · contribs) 00:31, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 22:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I plan to take on reviewing this article. I am not particularly familiar with the microscopic forms of life, barring some forms of algae, so I hope to provide some perspective from a less familiar but not 'totally unaware of biology' reader's position. Anticipate more detailed comments within roughly 24 hours. -- Reconrabbit 22:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Reconrabbit, I am grateful for your review. I have made the corresponding changes to the prose according to most of your comments, but there are a couple of issues untouched:

• I left "Spicule" as-is, but I plan to link to the Draft:Glossary of protistology after it leaves the draft phase.
• I struggle to understand your comment on reference [3]. This reference explains that R. glabra, like T. lacunata, shows one type of cell covering (scales) at some point in its life cycle, and then at a different point shows a different type of cell covering (spicules). I found no mention of "possessing characteristic Raphidocystis glabra plate scales and spicules at the same time" like you cited.

  I managed to lose my train of thought while writing this. What I thought was a contradiction was the presence of ribs in R. glabra that were similar to T. lacunata but that may be a misinterpretation on my part. -RR

• About [4], the reason why it's ignored is because Acanthocystis turfacea is described as having both spicules and scales at the same time, while these examples are about spicules and scales at different points in the life cycle. Does that make it clear?

  Yes, that's clear. -RR

• About [6] and [7], you assumed correctly. Not sure if this is an unpopular style of citation, but I tend to do this whenever one source (in this case [1]) uses other sources as support: I spread the accessory sources throughout the paragraph and place the main source at the end of the paragraph, to make it clear that it supports all the previous text. But please let me know, I might be wrong in doing this.

  That makes sense. I have done this in the past, but due to this exact point of potential confusion, I have started to duplicate the footnote mid-sentence so that it is absolutely clear which part is supported by what source. This leads to some awkward-looking paragraphs and may be remedied by rewording things to place sourced information in sequence, but all it does is make this particular part of review more straightforward and doesn't serve a reader particularly well. Based on your answer I take no issue with it. (This can also be somewhat remedied by using specific page-number footnotes if you don't mind using a different citation style, but even then can lead to this repetition as in Pronolagus humpatensis#Description -RR

I also see that you marked the WP:OR portion with a question mark, please let me know which part is suspect of that so I can improve it. Thanks in advance, — Snoteleks (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

To the last point: this is more correctly "2b" rather than "2c", I had them swapped in my understanding. -- Reconrabbit 21:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I have at some point used the different citation style (like in Katablepharid) but felt it was sloppier. About the ribs, R. glabra has a "longitudinal midrib" that is known as a "medial thickening" in T. lacunata, in both species present in the basal plate, but this is not the same as the "radial ribs" of T. lacunata which are numerous (not just one) in each scale and have not been reported in other species. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

That resolves my remaining confusions. -- Reconrabbit 20:51, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Prose

• "Spicule" could potentially link to sponge spicule but also understandable to leave as-is since this is not a sponge. I have linked some other terms on my own.
• The phrasing soil microbial ecosystems from Biogeography seems like it could be used in place of the phrase soil biotopes in the lead as a lower-level explanation of the term.
• "fossa" could be glossed with a link to wiktionary if not Fossa (anatomy)
• It is considered a representative of specific soil microbial ecosystems, which remain poorly explored Can you make it clearer if it's "these specific soil microbial ecosystems (in Russia and Ukraine)" which are poorly explored or that "soil microbial ecosystems in general" are poorly explored?
• The type strain HF-25 is an additional example of protists that have been recovered from permafrost condition This is strange to state without any context for other organisms or what makes permafrost relevant.
• Copyright: Nothing obvious found. Have not done checking for close paraphrasing yet.

References

• Layout: Nothing out of the ordinary Y

Spot checking

Reviewing 10 sources/15% of sources, whichever is larger. This article is short enough that I will review all of the sources used. Numbering is based on this revision.

• [1] Could find no places with source-text integrity failures in those checked (a, c, g) Y
• [2] Accurate to the text as written. Y
• [3] Supports the text, though it does bear a possible point of contention with the previous paragraph - wouldn't possessing characteristic Raphidocystis glabra plate scales and spicules at the same time resemble the construction of T. lacunata described or is it specifically the size and shape of the spine scales that are unique to this genus? (I can see that's true based on the images of Raphidocystis glabra.)
• [4] This article makes mention of Acanthocystis species having both scale-bearing and spicule-bearing stages, as does [3], so why is it omitted? I did look a bit further and this recent review https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0932473925000276 makes no mention of spicules.
• [5] Y
• [6] Supports the "poorly explored" part, the rest of this paragraph including parts cited to [7] are presumably supported by [1] Y
• [7] Conclusions drawn from this text are reasonable, even though centrohelids are not mentioned specifically (also drawn from [1]). Y

Scope

• Broad: Since this is a monophyletic genus, it resembles a species article more than that for a larger phylum. All of the expected sections (life history, nutrition, range) are present for that form of article and none are obviously deficient given the information available. Y
• Narrow: Though the article largely relies on Zagumyonnyi et al. 2021, it is supplemented with relevant information and does not have obvious omissions. Some sections are understandably short. Y

Stability

• Neutrality: Nothing of note that I can comment on in this section. Y
• Edit warring: No changes have been made to the page besides nominating editor. Y

Images

• Free/Fair use: Images have correct CC BY or CC BY SA licenses.
• Relevance: Placement is appropriate to the accompanying text, however, I removed the blank "link" parameters since it was making it hard to see details of the multiple image gallery.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.