Talk:Scotch bonnet (sea snail)/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Daniel Cavallari (talk · contribs) 12:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Very well then. It has been a while since I reviewed a GAN. So let us start the review process. I'm listing the GA criteria below.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

1.Well-written

• the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
• it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

Reviewer comments: The article has improved significantly since the submission. The prose is clear and the syle is consistent. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

2.Verifiable with no original research

• it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
• all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
• it contains no original research:

Reviewer comments: The major reference issue regarding the NCWild chart has been solved. References are standardized. All statements are now supported by appropriate references, with no exception. All possible instances of OR have been checked and removed. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

3.Broad in its coverage

• it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
• it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

Reviewer comments: Coverage is good, as per Wikiproject Gastropods standards. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

4.Neutral

• It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each:

Reviewer comments: As of now, it is absolutely neutral. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

5.Stable

• It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

Reviewer comments: It is absolutely stable. People involved in the GA review process are the only current editors. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

6.Illustrated, if possible, by images

• images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
• images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Final remarks: My sincere contratulations to everyone involved. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Please avoid posting comments anywhere other than here. I'll verify and comment each of the GA criteria above when I'm satisfied. They will act as a summary. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: I am the person who nominated this article for review, but I will not be able to be here as much as I usually like to be, because I am currently away from home and busy with traveling etc. I will try to do as much as I can, but my availability is sporadic, so I am trusting that a few other Project Gastropod members will pick up the slack as needed. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Leading section

The leading section looks good. A few things are bugging me though:

• Some references are popping up in the middle of the text. As per the MOS, they should be avoided in the lead unless they are there to support a controversial statement or information. This is not the case in any of them, so they should be removed.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I removed both. Invertzoo (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

There were three more to remove, so I did it myself. All done! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I thought I had nabbed all of them. My brain doesn't work very well when it is above 90º here. Invertzoo (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• It needs a little expansion to better summarize the content. I'm missing a little more info on taxonomy. Mentioning it has been confusing in the past is a good start, but perhaps stating how many recombinations were made, as well as which species it has been confused with may give the reader a better idea of the confusion. The part on ecology also needs an expansion, some brief info about the life cycle and use by other invertebrates should be included. Also, there is nothing about Anatomy/shell description.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to fix up the intro as suggested, but it may possibly need more attention. Invertzoo (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks good now. There's a little bit of everything, as it should. Good work! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Taxonomy

Oh boy. There are several things to tend to here:

• I wouldn't call Ignaz von Born a scientist in 1778. A naturalist would be a more precise term.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

That is quite correct; I have changed it. Invertzoo (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Some names mentioned in the text are preceded by a brief introductory phrase or title explaining who they are, and where they come from (Swedish naturalist Otto Andreas Lowson Mörch, American malacologist William James Clench, and so on), whereas some are not. Who is Weaver? And how about Robert Tucker Abbott? Miller? I know who they are, but the average reader does not. Besides, I believe a standard should be respected here. We should either add these titles to each and every name cited, or to none of them at all.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to do this, but I am not certain I got all the identities correct; someone else should check my work on this. Invertzoo (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Your identities seem good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

They're very good now =)! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• "Overall there has been some confusion, especially in the popular literature, about which name should be applied to which of these two taxa." I'm missing a reference here.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I cut this out as unnecessary. Invertzoo (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• "despite the Latin name, forms have no taxonomic significance" - whoa! That's a heavy taxonomic opinion here. I really don't believe jaxshells.com is an appropriate reference for this statement! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Oooops, yes, way over the top. I removed it. Invertzoo (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I thought so too! I reckon it is an interesting discussion, but not in the Scotch bonnet context. Thanks =)!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I also have a suggestion:

• Quoting the original description in Latin (with a translation, if we can) would be a nice touch. Born's book is available from the Biodiversity Heritage Library. The description page can be found here. I believe it reads "Testa ovata, transversim, obsolete sulcata, tessulis luteis seriatim maculata, labio granulato, cauda recurva". --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. I have added the Latin description. I have tried to translate it into English, but I have only got so far as "Shell ovate, with tranverse obsolete grooves, tessulis yellowish spots one after another in regular order. lip granulated, tail curved back." I wonder if someone on the Latin Wikipedia could help? What does "tessulls" mean? Does Born mean tesselate, like tiles? The spots on the shell are, after all, rather square, like tiles. A few years ago an expert told me that 18th century conchological Latin is often not really the same as classic Latin; it's a bit idiosyncratic; it's New Latin, so classic Latin scholars may find some of it puzzling. Invertzoo (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Tryon in his "Manual of Conchology VII" speaks of tessellations in his description of Cassis (Semicassis) sulcosa var. inflata (Shaw, 1811) (considered by him as a synonym of Semicassis granulata Born) : ("Somewhat thinner and more inflated than the type Cassis (Semicassis) sulcosa, often singly varicose, the lip not so much thickened, coloring more generally in tessellations, frequently one-varicose").

I found out that tessella, tessellae is Latin for: small cube, die; tile, shingle (Latham); pane (Erasmus). So I am wondering if "tessulis" means tile-like... I also wonder if doing a translation like this ourselves counts as OR? Invertzoo (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised that "tessulis" is a bad transcription by OCR (optical character recognition) as so often happens. There is no OR when one relies on accurate descriptions in English, based on the original description. JoJan (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

In this case we can examine the original Latin text ourselves here, and it definitely looks like "tessulis". I am right now writing to Mark Garland, the person who used to do translations of conchological Latin for me years ago. Invertzoo (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC) I hope to hear back from him soon. Invertzoo (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Anatomy

It's looking very good. Just some minor things:

• "The shell has a large aperture, with a thick and toothed outer lip. The inner lip of the aperture has many "pimple-like" bumps on the parietal shield or parietal callus near the siphonal notch." I'm missing a reference here.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes this needs a reference. Invertzoo (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I may be able to solve it myself. I'll look into it. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Done.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Some of the technical terms deserve a few wikilinks (outer lip, inner lip, spiral grooves). Let us clarify things for our non-malacologist readers =)! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe another project member can tackle this? Invertzoo (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

General comments

About the figures:

• Are all those shell pictures really necessary? There is already a very good plate in the taxobox, showing pretty much everything there is to show.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes good point. The students added all those images before we had the good 5-view one. I have removed most of them now. Invertzoo (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see! It totally makes sense now. Thank you. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Good idea to add the image of live snails from the "undulata" article. I uploaded another version of that image which I adjusted to be a little brighter and have less of a greenish tint. Invertzoo (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• The distribution map is based on someone else's work I presume. This should be mentioned (and a proper reference should be provided) in the caption.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I suppose the info in the map was based on was taken from Malacolog? Invertzoo (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I may have put that info in there myself a few years ago. It does appear to be based on Malacolog, and so I credited Rosenberg 2009. Invertzoo (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I see. The map is somewhat congruent with Gary's list of records, but not so much in terms of depth. I'm not quite sure about this map - if it states something that is not based on literature, even if it is a rough approximation, it could be labelled as OR. Removing it to avoid controversy seems like a good course of action. It wouldn't make the article less informative, nor is it required for a GAN. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the map does not add any information, and is potentially misleading. I have removed it. Invertzoo (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Invertzoo asked me to help as she was going to be unavailable. My main problem is that the reference #17, "Scotch bonnet" from North Carolina Wild, which is used multiple times, brings up an "error 404" and I cannot find a replacement url. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking all the references Cwmhiraeth! Invertzoo (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

If that reference no longer exists, then we will have to replace those refs with others, or take material out altogether. Fortunately this species is written up in several different places, both online and in print, so we should in theory be able to find other sources that make the same points, or similar ones. Invertzoo (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You raise a good point here. I had not noticed that reference issue myself, but I may have a solution.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel for all the fix-it work you are doing; it's much appreciated. Invertzoo (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! The final result is certainly worth our combined effort =)!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I did some major changes to the Anatomy section, based on references 27 (Redfern) and 28 (Abbott). These references contain most of the info from reference 15 (Friday's WNC profile), but not all of it.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Great idea to use Redfern and Abbott for shell anatomy info. Thanks Daniel. Invertzoo (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It so happens that I managed to get a PDF copy of the Scotch Bonnet profile from the good people at the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, which effectively proves it exists. They have also informed me that the older profiles are being updated, so they may publish a new version soon. As for our reference issue, I was able to verify all of the info still remaining in the article. The PDF copy is complete. I'll consider the case closed, and the article is pretty much ready to go. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Another note: what about Semicassis cicatricosa which is now Semicassis granulata form cicatricosa? This morning I changed the other article to reflect the current taxonomy. But should that article now be merged with this article? Invertzoo (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm yes, some changes to reflect this taxonomic interpretation would be welcome. Merging sounds like a better option. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: I merged it. I hope the way I did the merge seems OK. It is the evening here and I leave Nevis at 5 am tomorrow, and I will be traveling all day, so most likely I won't be able to check on here for about 36 hours or so. Best wishes to all, Invertzoo (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I am back now, albeit a bit woozy from the traveling yesterday, but able to work I think. Invertzoo (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• The list of synonyms is awfully long, so I have made it collapsible. What do you think? --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I like it. I think that was a good idea. Invertzoo (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)