Talk:Chlamys hastata

Edible?

There's nothing in the article concerning this type of scallop as food. Is it edible? Is there a market for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.235.1.4 (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added what information I could find. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chlamys hastata/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peter coxhead (talk · contribs) 15:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article is well-written; I haven't found any spelling or grammar errors. I find the article generally clear, but then I have studied invertebrate zoology at university level (albeit a long time ago). I think that it does at times over-use specialized terms without glossing them. In the Biology section, the following need either glossing or wikilinking: "umbone"; "right" and "left" used of valves without explaining how you know which is which and the relationship between upper and lower (images show animal oriented so that it has upper and lower valves); "cardinal teeth"; "mantle"; "labial palps"; "gonads"; "glycogen"; "gametes"; "D-stage"; "propodium" In the Ecology section: "epibionts"  Done No copyright or close paraphrasing issues were found. In other respects the article is fine.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I interpret the style guidelines for lead sections to mean that these should be especially careful to avoid using terms not familiar to Wikipedia's target audience. I'd like to see "neritic zone" glossed inline or replaced, rather than just wikilinked. "Phytoplankton" and "symbiotic" are probably ok if wikilinked.  Done The use of technical terms in the lead has been fixed; I think it's now much clearer to non-specialists. A one sentence addition summarizing the Fishery section would be a useful addition to complete the summary of the article.  Done All other aspects are fine.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Generally excellent, but Cassell's Latin Dictionary should have at least a date and an ISBN or OCLC added to complete the expected citation for a book.  Done
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Generally good use of inline citations to the standards expected of a science-based article. I'm a bit concerned about the use made of those numbered 7, 8 and 9 in the current version (the two by Tom Carefoot and Ask Nature). These sources do not appear to relate specifically to the species described here. For example, [1] says "Attachment of Chlamys spp. to the substratum is usually by 1-2 byssus threads." However this is used to support the sentence "The spiny scallop anchors itself to the substrate with one or two byssus threads." The article seems to me to go beyond the cited source.  Done As revised in my opinion the text is acceptable. It's reasonable to assume where no specific source can be found that this species shares the major body plan characteristics of the genus and family, and certainly there are no "counter-intuitive or controversial statements".
	2c. it contains no original research.	Fine in this respect.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The only information which I wanted to know is something about the position of the species within the genus. I note that the genus article doesn't have anything on phylogeny, division into sub-generic taxa, etc. so maybe there isn't anything. The main aspects are certainly addressed.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	A clear species account. (A little over-technical at times, I think: comments are at 1 above.)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Fine.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Fine.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The sole image meets the requirements.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The article is long enough for at least one more. Given the space devoted to epibionts an image showing, say, an encrusting sponge would be useful – are there any relevant images available?  Done I think the added image is useful; for a reader who doesn't know what a scallop looks like the surface view is also helpful compared to the side-on view in the taxobox.
	Additional comments	Is there a reason why non-abbreviated units are used in most of the article ("centimetres", "metres", etc.) but abbreviated units ("mm") are used in the Fishery section? I would be consistent.  Done Not required for the GA review but it looks better.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm very confident that this is a Good Article.

Replies

I have dealt with the items mentioned so far under 1a and 1b. The "Fishery" section was a late addition after someone asked on the article's talk page whether the spiny scallop was edible. I have added an extra image. With regard to 3a, I can't find information on how species in the genus differ from other pectinids. WoRMS lists about 10 species in the genus and about 50 that are now classified elsewhere.

The Cassell's Dictionary is difficult. It is tatty, has no cover, no ISBN and dates back to my husband's schooldays, probably long before you were studying invertebrate zoology at university. It gave a better meaning for the word "chlamys" than anything I could find online. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at [2] and see if you can at least give an OCLC number (|oclc=... in the citation). Alternatively, the text of a very early edition is online here; you could cite that. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I have dealt with all the items you mention in 1a. With regard to the orientation of the shell, I have added an explanatory section in Bivalve shell and wikilnked it from here. I went to the public library and referred to a better Latin dictionary.

I'm thinking about what you say in 2b. I found an extra source about the byssus attachment where it says "Chlamys hastata, a scallop species that attaches to substrates with a byssus."

As for the chemoreceptors, source 4 states that Chlamys hastata has chemoreceptors, I have put them on the tentacles like the queen scallop but I'll take them off if you like. What other function do you think the tentacles might have? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've found this kind of issue to be a problem in writing plant articles too. The standard approach in biological texts when describing a taxon is (sensibly) to describe only the departures from the norm for the higher level taxon to which it belongs, so if you want to source a statement that species X y has feature F, it may be impossible: you have to rely on the species being a member of e.g. a genus which is said to have this feature. You can then write something like "As is the case for all members of its genus, X y has feature F" and source the genus-level statement. However I've no desire to nitpick over this; as the article is written now it seems quite ok to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)