Talk:Metanephrops challengeri

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 17:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Review to follow soon. J Milburn (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• "1000 t" The first measurement not given in metric and imperial

•  Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Lobsters have few parasites,[5] the most important for M. challengeri being the microsporidian Myospora metanephrops," Awkward phrasing. Perhaps something like "Though lobsters have few parasites, a significant threat to [if you're talking about damage to the population]/problem for/problem with [if we're talking about an issue with regards to human consumption] is the microsp..."

•  Done. The problem with your suggested wordings is that they suggest more than is known. I have added a sentence explaining that although it's the worst parasite (presumably in terms of numbers affected and severity of the effect), the effect on the population or on the food is unknown. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• "It is one of the two most aberrant species" How so? What's so aberrant about it?

•  Done. A fair point. The authors of that study seemed (it's not entirely clear) to mean it had the longest branch or was the most basal lineage. Since the plesiomorphic-ness of the species is already mentioned, this statement didn't seem to be adding anything, so I have removed it. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps it would be worth linking "primitive" to Primitive (phylogenetics)?

•  Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I feel that the description is a little light. Other than size, weight and colour, there doesn't seem to be much by way of actual description

• It does seem short, but I don't recall a lot of extra detail in the sources. I'll look into it. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've added a little more; let me know if it's enough. I don't really know what else to add. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• How is it normally eaten? How is it rated as a food source? There's a lot of talk of fishing, but little of eating.

• Again, I'll investigate. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• The only sources I've been able to find are from commercial websites, which naturally promote the species (their species) as a tasty and versatile dish. There are some recipes around, but nothing explaining how the species is generally used, beyond the rather unhelpful line in Te Ara: "Scampi are cooked and eaten in the same manner as prawns" (they do at least go on to define "prawns", but give no details of how they are cooked). --Stemonitis (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• "from M. thomsoni, which was described by Spence Bate as a new species" Is this definitely still the accepted name of this species?

• Yes. Why do you doubt it? --Stemonitis (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• "The species was transferred to a new genus, Metanephrops" In some ways, transferred back, if I am understanding this correctly?

• No, it was described in Nephrops and moved to Metanephrops in 1972. There have been no other changes for this species. (What is now M. thomsoni was also in Nephrops at the time, like all the other current Metanephrops species.) --Stemonitis (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• That's what's thrown me- in the article, you say that the original specimens were "but were not separated from M. thomsoni", but, at the time, M. thomsoni was known as N. thomsoni. Could this be clarified? J Milburn (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• I know I've asked about this before, so apologies, but on what are you basing the ordering of the article? I'd personally do it a different way.

• There is a common practice of putting the Taxonomy section first, which is to my mind unjustifiable. It is the most technical and the least interesting part to a lay reader. Readers what to know 1) What is it? 2) Where is it? 3) Why is it important? For that reason, I've put Description and Distribution first (albeit not quite in that order), and then Fisheries, with Taxonomy last. I think this order makes sense. One could swap Description and Distribution, but I don't think it would achieve much. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Footnote 5 needs a "&" if it is to be consistent

•  Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Formatting on source 6 is odd- it looks like a book in an article in a journal, which is odd.

• Journals sometimes have special themed issues, with an editor and a title. The formatting is all done by the {{cite}} templates. I don't like the practice of un-italicising things which would normally be in italics when the whole phrase is in italics (for this very reason), but it is standard practice. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I appreciate that the cite templates can sometimes force unfortunate formatting, but we should do what we can to prevent it forcing its way into the article. I'll have a fiddle. J Milburn (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Source 6 also has strange formatting- double check?

• As above, formatting is all automatic.

• "New Zealand Fisheries information website" Why italics?

• As above.

• Sources and images look good.

• Thanks. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a bad article at all. J Milburn (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• I appreciate that details are hard to come by, but could it at least be made clear that this is for human consumption?
• The lead feels a little short for an article of this length- could it perhaps be expanded with another line or so? J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Have you had a look at this? I can send you a PDF copy if you don't have access to JSTOR.
• There's a lot of material here about it- you could even have a dedicated section on conservation; the article is short enough to have room. You could also mention the fact that the fishing has been brought up in relation to other conservation issues
• I'm still not wild on the lack of actual morphological description. I'll have a trawl through the appropriate section of my library next time I'm on campus... I can imagine that there may be a guidebook or two. J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I came across Wear (1976) too. I'm hoping to find time soon to add a section on development (busy weekend). I'm also still looking for more details on the description. I haven't finished with this article, but it may be a couple of days before anything much happens. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wasn't meaning to rush you- just found a few minutes to have another look at the article! J Milburn (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think I've dealt with most of the issues you mentioned. I've expanded the description, and added a Conservation section. I will re-work the lead when everything else is sorted out, but before I do, is there anything else you want me to look at? (The article has been distinctly improved by this review, so I'm happy for you to suggest more additions.) --Stemonitis (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna be on campus tomorrow/Tuesday, so I'll take a look and see if I can find anything with a more detailed description then. After that, another quick look through and the lead, and we should be good to go. It's really shaping up. J Milburn (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, my library has failed me; no luck finding anything else. The description section still isn't as detailed as it could be, but I think it's sufficient for a GA-level article. A few more thoughts-

• "The larvae hatch at the zoea stage (equivalent to the third zoea of the Northern Hemisphere species Nephrops norvegicus), albeit surrounded by a cuticle representing the pre-zoeal stage; this cuticle is shed during or shortly after eclosion (hatching)." A little too technical, I fear
• I still think that it needs to be made clearer that this species is caught for human consumption; this is something that could go in the lead expansion
• There's a little inconsistency in date formatting in the references
• What's up with footnote 19?

One these issues have been resolved and the lead has been expanded, I'm happy that this article is ready for GA status. Great work. J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Taking another quick look at the article, I'm happy that everything has been dealt with- this is now looking like a fantastic article. As such, I'm promoting. Great work, well done! J Milburn (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, and helpful suggestions. The process has improved the article no end. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)