This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetictree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Protista, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of protists and protistology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ProtistaWikipedia:WikiProject ProtistaTemplate:WikiProject ProtistaProtista
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology
Holozoa 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
Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The Holozoa spans at least 6 major groups, of which 1 is Animalia/Metazoa. So why have 6 out of 12 images of Animals? This is basically just human-centred-ism as the group we are in gets shamelessly 6 times over-represented. If your dice give you 6 sixes out of 12 throws, they're loaded. I suggest we have a single image of a single-celled Holozoan, or perhaps 2 such organisms; neither of them should be an Animal. It's really time we stopped that sort of thing on Wikipedia. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Chiswick Chap I agree, but I have always seen Wikipedia cater to the human-centric average reader experience, with the ever-present reference point of animals (and other organisms like plants) that we are most familiar with. Also, animals are vastly more diverse than their holozoan relatives, which led me to believe that it would be just as accurate. Since I have your support, I will change the image to make it more phylogenetically accurate. — Snoteleks (talk)13:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
