Talk:Byne's disease

Byne's disease 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
Date	Process	Result
November 17, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 5, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Byne's disease is not actually a disease, but a chemical reaction that attacks shells in storage or on display?

Museums High‑importance

	museums portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums 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.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gastropods Mid‑importance

	Gastropods portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gastropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of gastropods 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.GastropodsWikipedia:WikiProject GastropodsTemplate:WikiProject GastropodsGastropods articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taxonomy: For all marine species, Project Gastropods uses the taxonomy in the online database WoRMS. When starting a new article, do not use sources of taxonomic information that predate the 2017 revision for all gastropod groups ("Revised Classification, Nomenclator and Typification of Gastropod and Monoplacophoran Families" by Philippe Bouchet & Jean-Pierre Rocroi, Bernhard Hausdorf, Andrzej Kaim, Yasunori Kano, Alexander Nützel, Pavel Parkhaev, Michael Schrödl and Ellen E. Strong in Malacologia, 2017, 61(1–2): 1–526.) (can be dowloaded at Researchgate.net), substituting the previous classification of 2005 Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). If you need help with any aspect of an article, please leave a note at the Project talk page.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll begin reviewing here, and will make straightforward changes as I go (hopefully with explanations in edit summaries). Feel free to revert changes which inadvertently change the meaning. I will post queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~For flow in the lead, I think I'd put para 2 above para 3 as one wants to know what it is before what else it attacks.~~

I agree. Done!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought 'alkaline' was more widely understood and less ambiguous than 'basic' these days...(?)

I feel the material is too short in the History section to warrant subsection. It also interrupts with the flow of storytelling.

~~The first time someone is mentioned by name, I feel adding a couple of descriptors is valuable in understanding (usually nationality and occupation, eg. English naturalist, American zoologist etc.)~~

Their deep analysis, involving many complex and sophisticated techniques,... - this leaves me curious, and does come across as a little patronising - eg 'too complicated for you poor readers to know.' I am sure some discussion can be included here :)

Yes, I believe you are right. I have access to this paper, so I put in some more detail. Surprisingly enough, there were articles covering all the techniques. That's very good! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Details of the chemical reactions is a little unwieldy as a heading. Could be simply 'chemistry' or even 'biochemistry'.

Second Reviewer: --Snek01 (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality: will not be checked (I am not good at English.)

Improve this "In the first case," to much detailed.

Manual of Style compliance:

proposal: Clarification and Resolution merge to "Discovery of the cause".
proposal: Process Rename to "Chemistry" and ommitt caption name "Details of the chemical reactions". (Add PVC reaction if needed.)
proposal: Add wikilinks to the materials in table row "Archival materials without acidic fumes". Added.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Not referenced PVC problem.

Done.

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Not explained, why the PVC is problem.

Done.

Now explained and supported by Sturm (2006).--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

One alt text missing.
I will crop the File:File:Bynesian Decay 001.JPG. May I? --Snek01 (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Please go ahead.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped and colors altered. --Snek01 (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about to add one sentence about an alternative way/ways(?) of storage? The only alternative is ethanol, I think.
A link to display case... ?

--Snek01 (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

okay, we're over the line...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Byne's disease. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090124152217/http://s190418054.onlinehome.us:80/portal/1999/9908mon.pdf to http://s190418054.onlinehome.us/portal/1999/9908mon.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]