Talk:Turritopsis nutricula

Animals Low‑importance

Turritopsis nutricula 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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 29 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jpplatt11. Peer reviewers: Rjholt24, JazzyBre.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

This article is too similar to the article Turritopsis dohrnii. The contents of this article should be moved to the other article. Blackbombchu (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. From what I gather, this one used to be referred to as the "immortal jellyfish" but now dohrnii holds that name. Regardless, they are separate but related species and thus would be expected to be similar. As long as they both exist and are not the same -- and I'll wait for your response before removing the PROD because I'm not certain -- then it's a clear keep. --Rhododendrites (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they are the same, PROD isn't the way to do the merge. I'll whap it. htom (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

·Lead section: -Reflects two very important pieces of information regarding the species. -A more in-depth description of how it transfers its cells back to childhood when it reaches maturity and what this process is called is needed. This aspect was very briefly mentioned and being a defining characteristic of the species it needs to be given just a little more explanation, or at least a change in the phrasing, in the lead. -More of an overview of important/defining characteristics is needed for readers to better understand the species

·Sections: -Sections are well organized just need to finish adding information to each -Important sections are present however consider adding a section or two regarding how the species has been used in scientific testing or how different environmental factors effect it, etc. Go beyond the basics. -You do a good job describing the life cycle and aspects of reproduction in that section. I like how you went from describing the general hydrozoan life cycle then gradually narrowed down to the specific species. -Not biased but simply gives explanation clearly

·Sources: -Good use of different sources when discussing a single aspect to help reduce bias and ensure proper and full explanation. -Good sources, 5/6 are scholarly articles published in quality journals — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjholt24 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]