Talk:Eustrombus gigas/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Philcha (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.

When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with  Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and strike it out --

BTW I've occasionally had edit conflicts in review pages, and to reduce this risk I'd be grateful if you'd let me know when you're most active (UTC), so I can avoid these times. --Philcha (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I am happy to help out with the fixing up of this article if there is stuff that I can do. I don't really have access to the print literature right now though. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Coverage[edit]

  • (comment) No significant gaps at the top level - I may have further comments in specific sections. --Philcha (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Structure[edit]

  • Overall it looks fragmented to me. The article structures for gastropods that have achieved GA status may help as guides - Kerry slug (by a reviewer whose work I know) and Love dart (don't know this reviewer but looks competent). My own zoology articles are usually at phylum and sub-phylum level, and in these I typically have a different structure, as I need to make room for evolutionary history (see e.g. Arthropod) as well as a more detailed accouint of basic zoology:
    • Description, with sub-sections on: appearance; anatomy; feeding and excretion; respiration and circulation; reproduction and lifecycle; nerveous senses and senses. I may vary the order, e.g. in some cases a sub-section I usually place later may help provide background for a sub-section I usually place earlier.
    • Ecology, with sub-sections on: habitat and range; "prey", predators, parasites, etc.; interaction with humans (e.g. as food or parasites); threats and conservation
    • "Evolutionary history", including: fossil record; phylogeny
    • Classification (the old Linnean system, although molecular phylogeny is shredding much of this). --Philcha (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Sections are simplified and standardized. (For more info, if needed, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods#Universal_sections.) --Snek01 (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd change "Etymology" to "Naming" - see below. --Philcha (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Bits of material about threats and conversation all over the place. These should be consolidated and repetitions ratioalised. --Philcha (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I have reorganized most of the Conservation/Threats section, removing any conservation/threat related text that was outside of it, except of course for the Article Intro. I basically merged those sections and rewrote them, removing any redundancies I could find.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!
I shall not make further comments on the structure, as the current structure appears to be what WikiProject Gastropods wants. ---Philcha (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"Etymology" -> "Naming"[edit]

  • Change section title so as to handle name change as well. --Philcha (talk)
  • Etymology of Eustrombus. --Philcha (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Refs for etymology of parts of species name. If needed I can help, I remember some Greek and known where to look up. --Philcha (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Though I also remember some Greek, I wouldn't be able to find any references to support the etymology. Help would indeed be welcome.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a rusty degree in Ancient Greek, so can help in a pinch. --Philcha (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done Revision of name. Linnaeus said Strombus, who coined Eustrombus and why? I note CITES uses Strombus, is this a a sign of controversy, or some other reason? -Philcha (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
It happens to be that various subgenera within the Strombidae, including Estrombus, were elevated to genus level recently. Petuch (2004) and Petuch and Roberts (2007) recombined Strombus gigas as Eustrombus gigas. I can't say why, at least not now, though I can check this out later. As I was looking for more information, I also discovered that Landau et al. 2008 recombined E. gigas within a recently described genus, as Lobatus gigas. It's rather confusing to be honest! Either way, Malacolog still uses Eustrombus gigas, so we might stick to that nomenclature for a while. I will create a section to explain that confusing taxonomy.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you hate it when that happens? Something similar happened to me recently. The textbook I use as a basic ref for zoology articles notes that gastropod taxonomy is being redeveloped with a wrecking ball. It would being prudent to have 3-4 good sources that support oneof the options and use that - and outline the alternatives. Sheesh! --Philcha (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I was able to get those papers (Landau 2008, Petuch 2004), and some other recent ones discussing this subject, and also got some info from other specialists. I'll update this info in the article ASAP. It seems that in fact, the currently most accepted taxon is Lobatus gigas. Would a move be be harmful to this article, regarding the GA review process?--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, bloody hell! You know the research, so will have to judge whether e.g. the name Lobatus gigas is a solid consensus or a bare majority. I know of other areas of zoology where there naming issues (e.g. in additional [1], Annelida has absorbed a few other previously-phyla), and we can't leave these under quarantine for years. If the article passes as GA (hopefully!), it should be listed under Lobatus gigas at WP:GA. While the review is open I'd expect WP:GAN should have the new name as well, but am unaware of any WP procedures on this - I'll check. --Philcha (talk) 07:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Daniel. Thanks for the copy of the note from Prof. Kronenberg. Is A molecular phylogenetic analysis of strombid gastropod morphological diversity the "Latiolais et al. (2006)" Kronenberg mentions? Re cladograms:
  • I'm not sure you'd want cladogram(s) in a species article, because then you'd want to include the same cladogram(s) in articles about closely-related species. Then if a an improved analysis appeared you'd update all the copies of the cladogram(s). Etc. If there are cladograms that are well enough suported, I'd must them up to a higher-level article, e.g. the family. --Philcha (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • If A molecular phylogenetic analysis of strombid gastropod morphological diversity is the right "Latiolais et al. (2006)" paper, the authors treat it as provisional, noting the small sample of taxa and the assumption that "extinction is not biased in terms of morphology or clade membership". ----Philcha (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Kronenberg's note to you mentions various taxonomies, none of which mentions Eustrombus. Re the choice between the alternative genus names, I'll leave that you. You'd need decent evidence that L. (or whatever) is current consensus. I also suggest you don't want to delve into details here. --Philcha (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there any doubt that x. gigas is one species? That could be some comfort? --Philcha (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Answering in order. First: Yes, this is the article he mentions (Latiolais, 2006). Yet, this is more complete than previous analysis, at least those I know. In any case, it corroborates some further presented hypothesis (In 2007-2008 works by other researchers). So, about the cladogram... I believe it is not necessary to include the whole hypothesis presented by Latiolais; We could in fact represent the Eastern Pacific/Atlantic clade Tricornis, which comprises S. gigas, S. gallus, S. costatus, S. raninus, S. peruvianus and S. galeatus and the immediate external group (S. latus). Some of those species already have articles in enWikipedia, and I would gladly create the other if needed. Second: Professor Kronenberg did in fact mentioned Eustrombus, as one of our options is to consider it at genus level. So it's our choice in the end. Third: There is no doubt at all that x. gigas is a species (no cryptics). Of that I think I am sure (at least)! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
So you're staying with Eustrombus gigas? If so, is it worthwhile mentioning Lobatus gigas? Your call. -Philcha (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think we should stay with E. gigas for the moment. If L. gigas turns out to be a valid name in the future, then we shall change it. Not to worry about right now!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
OK! --Philcha (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy[edit]

  •  DoneNeed to resove whether name Lobatus gigas shoudl be mentioned. --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Done, see coments above. --Philcha (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • As far as I can seen "queen conch" appears in lead but not in main text. I'd explain in "Taxonomy", citing Leal (2002) p. 139. --Philcha (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Shell description[edit]

  •  Done The referencing of first 2 paras ("The adult shell is from 15-31 cm ... colored pale tan" is poorly organised:
I agree. Done!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done Leal (2002) simply gives the name Strombus gigas in a list with no futher information about the species. I'm not sure it's worth using. --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that was my mistake! I corrected the link, and also specified the page. S. gigas can be found on page 139 now.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see, no source currently supports:
    •  Done "The periostracum is very thin, and colored pale tan". --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Corrected! Currently supported by Leal (2002), check the corrected link.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done "very thick and heavy" --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Substituting "thick" by "solid", now supported by Leal (2002).--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "There is a stromboid notch on the outer lip. In life the left eyestalk protrudes through this notch."
Though this (the notch) is a common feature of most Strombidae, which can even be seen in some of the article pictures (the protruding eye can be seen in some of the pictures also). Correct me if I am wrong, but a solution could be to better describe its appearance and location, so any reader can verify it in the article pictures themselves. Do you agree? If so, I can easily describe it.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
You'd also need to:
  • Identify which of the indents is the stromboid notch.
  • Cites that the notch appears in E. gigas, as you note the notch is "a common feature of most Strombidae". --Philcha (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I've tried to better describe it, so the average reader may easily locate it. I'm not sure that this is satisfactory, so please give me your opinion!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • No citations for para "In contrast, the juvenile shells are a mottled brown and white ... The outer lip of an adult shell gradually increases its thickness with age." --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Now supported by Davis (2003)--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Please make sure that every statement is supported - see WP:V. --Philcha (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Also added a reference (Abbott) to support the juveniles being called "rollers". Still working on it.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done Best not to mix cm and mm. --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Fixed!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Later, probably near the end of the review, we need to decide which pics go where. Having 2 pics in the taxobox pushes the taxobox well into the main text and causes layouts in the first half of the text. In general pics should be selected and placed to support text. --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done "stromboid notch" is not a useful wikilink, as it links to the top of Strombidae rather than a specific section, and the relevant at Strombidae could be summarised here. This is also the first point at which the layout and image issues appear, as File:Eustrombus gigas.jpg would be very helpful here - in fact IMO File:Eustrombus gigas.jpg is one of the most images in the entire article. --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
A referenced article (Stromboid notch) has been created, so I fixed the wikilink.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. But see comments above. --Philcha (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • A pair of labelled pics would make it easier for readers to understand the terms used in the shell description. When we resolve the layout and pic issues, I'll show you how to use {{Annotated image}}, a tool I've found very useful in anatomy. --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done "environmental conditions (such as geographic location, nourishment and temperature) can greatly affect it" has 2 issues:
    •  Done The source is a MSc thesis, and that is a grey area in WP:RS - no evidence that it was externally refereed (and passed). I also note that it was dated 1991. If this work was considered significant by malacologists, I'd expect to see analyses or at least citations in academic books or articles. --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I added another source, hope it solves the problem.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done "environmental conditions (such as geographic location, nourishment and temperature) can greatly affect it" is a bit of a tease. I can understand if you can't fully describe the variations in shells caused by conditions, but 1 or 2 examples would be helpful. --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Added two examples, with proper reference--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done I copyedited to "determined by the animal's genes" (apostrophe). --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


Please check every statement in the entire article has a citation from a good source - see WP:V. Then please say when this is done, and I'll continue the review. --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Taxobox[edit]

(do after main text sections, as these may provide refs and other useful things)

  • Need to clarify name. --Philcha (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Needs refs. --Philcha (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, what references are needed in taxobox?--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Links validity check[edit]

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved) link checker

Ran this just now out of curiosity, the majority are fine but it seems that:
  • reference 15, "structure and regeneration of the eyes..." is now a dead link, and
  • the link to images and movies of the queen conch on arkive is problematic because it "changes path"
Invertzoo (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Dead link removed. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Check for disambiguation and other dubious wikilinks[edit]

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)

There are four diambiguations that need to go to the right articles: Cat Island, Clench, Swan Island, and Villa Clara. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of images[edit]

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)

Lead[edit]

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)


Review by Geometry guy[edit]

Unfortunately, Philcha has been taken ill, and has asked for another reviewer to take over this. I am willing to do so, although other reviewers may also be willing. I've made some minor fixes and copyedits (please fix or revert these if I have made any mistakes or you disagree with them).

On my read through, the main outstanding issue I noticed is the section on threats and conservation, especially the first paragraph. I am wholly supportive of the good intent to draw attention to a conservation issue, but please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not express opinions or make predictions without attribution to reliable sources. We should inform the reader about the facts, and present a balance of opinions in reliable sources, then trust the reader to come to their own conclusions. The language in the entirely uncited first paragraph is loose and opinionated ("Since these days... it is hard to enforce rules... If this continues unabated... will very likely be unable to recover.").

These are grounds to fail on criteria 1a, 2 and 4, and I don't want to do that on an otherwise very nice article! Geometry guy 20:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Geometry guy, Thanks so much for taking over the review; I am sorry to hear that Philcha is not feeling well. I just did now a clean up of that problematic paragraph to try to remove a lot of the POV. Perhaps we can find some sources to support what is left of the paragraph as needed. I am happy to try to do other clean up as necessary although I am not as "well read" on this species as Daniel Cavallari is. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I've copyedited a bit, but may also have shifted the emphasis: feel free to correct. However, this paragraph does now need to be sourced, and the ultimate phrasing (vast, many, some, etc.) needs to come from sources. (Hopefully the paragraph is now easier to source.) Geometry guy 21:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I've now started a review above. The main failings are WP:LEAD (the lead does not summarize the article) and uncited material (many of the tagged sentences require citations according to the GA criteria). Since there has been no activity in the last month, these are reasons to close the nomination and not list the article. Other minor issues include image density (there are rather many in the first part of the article) and focus/neutrality (there's quite a lot on conservation issues). I'll keep the review open for another couple of days in case there is renewed effort to fix the article. Geometry guy 21:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Now closing. Apart from the sourcing, I'm not completely convinced by the balance of the article or the lead, so I can't list it as a GA at this time. Please renominate once the issues raised above are addressed. Geometry guy 22:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

- - - - - please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - -
If you want to start a new section of the Talk page while this review is still here, edit the whole page, i.e.use the "edit" link at the top of the page.