Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kerry slug/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:12, 10 October 2009 [1].

Kerry slug[edit]

Nominator(s): Snek01 (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it fullfils all FA criteria. If it would pass, then it will be the first FA article of all gastropods. --Snek01 (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize if this nomination was a bit premature, I did not know it was planned. As Snek says, this is the very first of all of our WikiProject Gastropod articles to attempt to reach FA status, and because of this we don't know much at all about the process, sorry. Thank you to everyone who is reviewing it for your patience and your helpful suggestions. We will try to bring all of the deficiencies up to standard immediately. Best wishes and thank you, Invertzoo (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. ~~Please add alt text to images;~~ see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just now made alt text for all the images. Let me know if this aspect is OK now or needs more work. Invertzoo (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks good , except please remove phrases like "Black and white drawing of", "Black and white drawing showing", "A line drawing of", "Colored drawing showing", "Photo shows", etc., as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid. Eubulides (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed all that extra unnecessary stuff in alt text, thanks for pointing that out to us. Invertzoo (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
- ~~The only English-speaking country with this animal is Ireland, so why is it written in US English?~~

That is the most unimportant thing. There is no one British speaking active member in the whole Wikiproject gastropods. I am sorry, but nobody will appreciate this comment, because 2 of 3 authors of the article are not native English speakers. --Snek01 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Find someone who is a first language English speaker. it's not that difficult to change spelling anyway, I've written one FA entirely in AE, despite being a BE user. Also, currently inconsistent - dark-grey in color - "grey" is BE, "color" is AE. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jim, are you first language English speaker? You have no Babel boxes on your Userpage. --Snek01 (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the text has now been converted to British English. Invertzoo (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were several "color" missed, I've fixed them, or removed if redundant Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching the extras. It's hard for me to see all of them because I have lived many years in both countries, and get the spelling confused. Invertzoo (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- All the redlinks are messy, just lose them

Red links useful. --Snek01 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you actually intend to write all those articles? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Snek01 (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can help you Snek to create stub articles for all these red links. Invertzoo (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will start turning the red links into blue links this evening. Invertzoo (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that red links are not considered a valid oppose rationale (I understand there are other issues here, just saying). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple red links are rapidly disappearing and hopefully all should be gone in a couple of days. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Image captions should not include the species name~~

??? Yes, captions of course should include what is on the image. --Snek01 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption is that images are of the organism that is the subject of the article unless otherwise stated. "Drawing" seems superfluous too, and illustrator's name is not needed in captions. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assumptions are not for encyclopedia, reader have to be sure. The same is valid for the type of the image. Adding of illustrators name depends on writers consideration/importance, and so on and I did considered rather to put the name to provide interconnexion. It for example shows what researchers were associated with this species. --Snek01 (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrator's name is arguable, but putting article name in caption is unacceptable, for the same reason that it's not used in section headings. This isn't my idea, it's standard practice Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to fix all the captions. I hope they seem OK now. Thanks for explaining this to us, we did not know, sorry. Invertzoo (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other points

- Geomalacus maculosus, commonly known as the Kerry Slug or Kerry spotted slug - start with article name, don't bold binomial - The Kerry Slug or Kerry spotted slug, (Geomalacus maculosus)

Bold binomial of the subject of the article is completely OK. --Snek01 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed this. I hope it reads OK now? Invertzoo (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Inconsistent capitalisation of the name~~

Captalization in the text of the article is now unified. --Snek01 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Not all units are given Imperial conversions~~

I think those are all present now. Invertzoo (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Lead section is completely inadequate, nothing on taxonomy or conservation, for example

Of course that there is its taxonomy there. Metioning of protection is added now. --Snek01 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section is now much more complete. Is this adequate or does it need more work? Please let me know. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Some more points
- Taxonomy tells me nothing about the classification of this slug, which seems strange

Classification updated. --Snek01 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded this section, I am not sure but is this more like what is needed? Invertzoo (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added more to it this afternoon, hope this is helpful. Invertzoo (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The writing is sloppy, with poor phrasing and even a misused "it's". I could elaborate, but better to pull the article for now, write a proper lead, and get a good copy edit done. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to improve phrasing. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, but it's your FAC. If the authors are mainly non-first-language English speakers, all the more reason to get a good copy edit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? If it is really so, then I do not want this my something. Goodbye. --Snek01 (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Casliber wrote, that it is "Clearly written, in good prose ...". --Snek01 (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through this afternoon improving prose, and will go through again this evening. Invertzoo (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went through all the technical sections this evening fixing them up a fair amount. Invertzoo (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Let me know if this is not enough, thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Taxonomy. Why have you given meaning of maculosus but not Geomalacus? ~~Why is this species in a separate subgenus?~~

Explaning of word Geomalacus is on the article Geomalacus. I do not know why it is in separate subgenus, respectivelly I do not know how subgenus Arrudia differs from this one. The first place where this infomation should be mentioned is article Geomalacus.

I think it should also be explained here. this seems to suggest that the other subgenus is sometimes given full species status. can that be relected here if that's correct? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That source you linked suggests nothing about what you have written. --Snek01 (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This evening I put a brief explanation of the meaning of the name Geomalacus into the taxonomy section. Invertzoo (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- You've linked common words like Ireland (more than once, although strangely not at the first occurence), but assumed your readers understand "subdorsal" and "shagreened"

The reader should be familiar with the word "subdorsal". Word "shagreened" is explained and wikilinked now. --Snek01 (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to make sure today that wikilinks are now only on the first use of the word. Invertzoo (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to explain every piece of obscure terminology this evening. I hope I have made it a lot clearer. Invertzoo (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- similar to the genus Arion, and other references to the genus, are unhelpful to non-specialists

Arion is wikilinked now. --Snek01 (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explained that Arion is the type genus of the family, and thus is used as a comparison. Invertzoo (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That misses the point. in an FA, you need, for example, to describe the digestive system, it's not adequate to say it's like the rest of the genus Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That you demand can not be expanded. 1) There was never published nothing more about another parts of digestive system of this species except of jaw and radula, which are described in this article in very detail. 2) Even comparison with other species could be original research, because we do not know in which aspects are similar. 3) Describing anatomy of other genus or of other species is out of scope of this article. Imagine that for example in featured article Red-billed Chough is NOTHING about internal anatomy and compare it with internal anatomy of Kerry slug article... --Snek01 (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed div formatting below, shouldn't be used in FAC reviews. I'm confused. If the digestive system is unknown, the sentence is pointless. How can we know it's similar to other Arion, but not know in what ways. Either we don't know about the digestive system, and the sentence should go (as you point out, it's not essential), or we do, and it can be described.

Your note is annoying. (By the way, the alimentary canal is not the same as digestive system so use at least proper terms.) If we wrote for example: "The alimentary canal of tiger is similar to alimentary canal of lion.", then it is valuable information. We so know, that at least one human was interested in this thing and he/she found no differences here. For example we then know, that he/she found there no special things on this. But the way, these structures are usually not species specific, so this information is sufficient and adequate. --- I am trying to explain it for you, because there will be MANY more things like this in coming many more 60.000 species of not well known gastropods. --Snek01 (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) saying The alimentary canal of tiger is similar to alimentary canal of lion. is equally useless if there is no description of either, as in this article. You cannot assume your readers are experts on gastropod biology Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- References "in English" is unnecessary, many of the references are incorrectly formatted esp with regard to italicising binomial and page numbers, and you have mixed cite and citation templates - you must stick to one style.

Mentioning English in references removed. That one italicization is removed. All is unified. --Snek01 (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 1,4,8,9, 13, 16, 18 have binomial incorrectly italicised, several non-English references have the language repeated, what's the date of 15, ref 17 has pp. 15 pp., page 12, at least three different date formats used - this is all obvious stuff that should have been addressed before FAC Jimfbleak - talk to me?

Yes, that is OK, according to the guidelines the titles shoudl not be italicized. That is not against rules to have marked non-English references like this. The template does not allow to do it promptly with the template only, how to do it? Dates formats are now unified. --Snek01 (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand, it is the binomial name that needs italics in the refs, not the title. You don't need both "(Spanish)" and "in Spanish" in the same ref. problems with refs 15 and 17 also still not addressed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is not chosen standard for bibliographic referencing on wikipedia. Binomial names in titles of journal articles could be italicized, but this is not mentioned in guidelines(!) - so you can not demand this unless it will appear in guidelines. But what to do with binomial names in titles of books, which whole titles of books are already italicized? Is it OK? If there is not unification in guidelines, then you can not demand unification in articles. So do not bother with this in the article. The only demand for references is to be "consistently formated". If there are not rules how, then any chosen consistent formating is OK. --Snek01 (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a binomial is in text which is already italicised, like a book title, the binomial is in Roman. This is standard writing technique for showing italics within text that is italicised for other reasons. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Vulnerable is a DAB Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Snek01 (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - arbitrary break

Sorry to come in a bit late in this process, I did not know it was going on until last night. I have now done the following improvements:

1. Enlarged the intro, to include all the topics covered in the article.

2. Given one first sweep through the whole article itself improving the prose and clarifying.

3. Added an "alt text" to all the photos except for the taxobox one which already had it. (I have never done alt text before so I hope these are good enough.)

4. Added more imperial measurements to match metric measurements as needed.

I hope to do more improvements soon. Invertzoo (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Added one.Invertzoo (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the prose needs some work to bring it up to a "professional standard", and the article needs a MOS overhaul. I'm more inclined to give it a copyedit myself than list every detail that needs to be fixed here, if that's alright with the noms. That can be undertaken later, after some issues with the content listed below are addressed: Sasata (talk)

I would certainly welcome some help with copyediting, thanks very much for the offer. Invertzoo (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"William Andrews sent material he had found ..." Who is William Andrews?

OK, explanied. --Snek01 (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Geomalacus maculosus is the only species in the subgenus Geomalacus. " How about a sentence to explain what distinguishes what characterizes subgenus Geomalacus?

This should be in Geomalacus article. The same question is written above. --Snek01 (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to fix this. Invertzoo (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Kerry slugs can also elongate themselves within crevices up to 12 cm (4.8 in).[4] Because of this, Kerney (1983)[5] gives slightly different measurements for the species: 6–9 cm (2.4–3.6 in)." Does the source actually say that the different measurements is due to this "crevice elongation factor", or is this your interpretation of the differing measurements? As a bystander I would guess that the slightly different measurements are just due to sampling randomness.

It seems to be OK by me, but feel free to verify it in the reference. --Snek01 (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed this problem now, let me know if it does not seem OK yet. Invertzoo (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The body is glossy, covered on each side..." Side meaning left and right side?