Talk:California spiny lobster/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've signed up for this review. Comments in a day or 2. Sasata (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments to get us started: Sasata (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• lead is currently rather short

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• "The California spiny lobster is one of the largest species" of what? lobster? spiny lobster? sea creature?

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Males can weigh up to 26 pounds (12 kg)." And the females? This number seems to be one end of a range… what does the average male (and female) typically weigh?

• "…but with one or more lighter streaks running along their length." dorsally or ventrally?

 Not done – I can't find a source which says explicitly. I suppose there may be variation in their placement. Fortunately, the stripes are evident on the taxobox photo, so readers can get a good idea from that. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• What do the genital openings look like? How many are there? Are they arranged in a pattern?

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• I can't see a small claw on the fifth pereiopod of the individual in the taxobox pic, so is it male?

• The claws really are very small; the tips of P5 aren't visible in that picture, so I can't say. I did notice that the drawing further down does show the claws, and must therefore be a female. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• should avoid starting paragraphs or section with abbreviations (P. interrupts); I notice that the article jumps between using the binomial and the common name, is this intentional?

 Done – it wasn't intentional; I'm used to using scientific names, and I don't always remember to stick to the common name. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• consider inserting non-breaking spaces in short-form binomials to avoid unsightly line breaks

 Done (no longer an issue having dealt with the point above) --Stemonitis (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• what about taxonomy? who first discovered the species? Where did he find it? What was it published in? What's the story behind the synonym Palinurus interruptus?

• ok, reading on I see at least some of this is answered later on … I'm not used to not having a discrete taxonomy section :)

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• why not give the length of the sexually mature male, as was done for the female?

 Not done – that figure is not given in the source. It's also harder to determine male sexual maturity; females carrying eggs are evidently sexually mature, but there are no such indicators for males. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• how big are the eggs? Are they held together in a gelatinous matrix that supplies nutrients and buffers against temperature variation? (I have no idea, just guessing)

 Not done – I haven't been able to find any measurements, so I think we'll have to make do with the number, and knowing the size of the whole animal carrying them. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Settlement of the puerulus larvae is concentrated in the fall." Do not quite know what this means… they sink to the ocean floor when they reach the puerulus state?

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• this is probably just basic lobster biology, but what do the larvae eat?

 Done - OK, it's not much, but it looks like not much is known. Phyllosoma larvae are impossible to keep in the lab. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• "When available, the juveniles prefer to each crabs." ? cannot parse

 Done: eat, not each. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• on what evidence are the listed Panilurus species its closest relatives? Has there been any molecular phylogenetics done?

 Done. Yes there has, and I hadn't spotted it before. Fortunately, it concurs with the morphological studies.

• what physical differences are there between this lobster and its close relatives?

 Done – reiterated the grooves; there are other characters, but to explain them properly would be to give undue weight to that subtopic, I feel. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• point 1 of "Sport fishing in California" appears to have been prematurely truncated

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• could you clarify that the 5th pereiopod is closest to the front of the body? I don't think it qualifies as common knowledge, as I couldn't even confirm the fact from reading the Decapod anatomy article.

• The article does say the "in males they [the gonopores] are at the base of the fifth (last) pereiopods", which was meant to clarify that. They are counted from the anterior end, so the fifth pair of pereiopods are the furthest from the head and the closest to the abdomen. Can you think of a concise way of making that clearer? --Stemonitis (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• You just did! I added it. Sasata (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• display of units appears inconsistent (or maybe there's a pattern I don't see); sometimes its in full, sometimes abbreviated. Compare "31⁄4 inches (82.6 mm)" in one section to "82.5 mm (3.25 in)" repeated a bit later

• The quantities are given in SI units first, except where quoting directly from a source. Publications from the State of California naturally use Imperial units (hence the 3¼ in carapace length, and fishery statistics in pounds), while the Mexican laws, and most non-governmental sources, use SI units. I wouldn't be too bothered about converting the fishery statistics (which are approximate anyway) to being SI first, but I don't think we should alter the legally defined limits. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds ok. You might want to make the output so that all units are abbreviated, or given in full. Not a big deal though. Sasata (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

All of my main concerns have been addressed, so I will promote the article. Sasata (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Clearly written, complies with MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):

   Article well-cited to reliable sources.

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):

   All images have appropriate free-use licenses.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: