Talk:Velodona

File:Velodona togata.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Velodona togata.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 4, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-02-04. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Velodona togata is the only species in the octopus genus Velodona; the genus and species names come from the large membranes that connect its arms. It was first described by Carl Chun in his book Die Cephalopoden (from which this illustration is taken) in 1915. A second subspecies was described by Guy Coburn Robson in 1924.Illustration: Ewald Rübsamen

Angel octopus

I can't find any source that refers to V. togata as the "angel octopus". As such, it's been removed from the article. If you find a reliable source, please add it back in (and cite it). Sven Manguard Wha? 06:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 17:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Sven Manguard Wha?

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 17:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Lead should provide an accessible overview with Relative emphasis. The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the body. Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Major Point 1: Taxonomy "Velodona togata is a species of octopus … distinctive membranes on its arms," (summarised well in the lead) Major Point 2: Description "" (not in the lead) Major Point 3: Reproduction "" (not in the lead) Major Point 4: Habitat and distribution "the species is found in the Indian Ocean, mainly off the coast of South Africa, Mozambique, and Tanzania." (not a concise summary of the Habitat and distribution section, also the point "found in the Indian Ocean" does not appear in the body, although there is a hint in the Reproduction section "deep-sea octopods that inhabit the Southern Ocean") Major Point 5: Status "" (not in the lead, a layout issue) Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Major Point 1: Taxonomy "Velodona togata is a species of octopus … distinctive membranes on its arms," (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 2: Description "" (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 3: Reproduction "" (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 4: Habitat and distribution "the species is found in the Indian Ocean, mainly off the coast of South Africa, Mozambique, and Tanzania." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 5: Status "" (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body, a layout issue) Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done Velodona togata is a species of octopus in the monotypic genus Velodona. Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies: NA Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons: NA Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done The lead should be expanded. Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading (WP:BETTER) Fix section Status. The paragraph is too short. Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO): None Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): None Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done Check for Links to sister projects: None Check for Navigation templates: None Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT: None NA Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
None Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google & sources borrowed from the nominator. Cross-checked with other FAs. )

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Cross-checked with other FAs: Porbeagle, Acrocanthosaurus, Akodon spegazzinii, Procellariidae, Albatross, Albertosaurus, Aleeta curvicosta, Velociraptor, Allosaurus, Alpine Chough, Ambondro mahabo, Archaeoindris, Voalavo. Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: No Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: (Integrated Taxonomic Information System) Carl Chun (Keter Publishing House) Guy Coburn Robson (Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London) Silva, Luis; Sobrino, Ignacio; Hernández, Eva (Fisheries Research) Guy Coburn Robson (Journal of Natural History) (IUCN Red List of Threatened Species) Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Integrated Taxonomic Information System Keter Publishing House Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London Fisheries Research Journal of Natural History IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:

Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done "darker brown" for the female.[6] (Check on source 6, successful, "Tile ventral surface is very much paler, though it shows a scattering of fine dull reddish chromatophores. The female specimen is darker brown in colour. In both sexes the anterior surface of the mantle is marked off from tile posterior by a more or less distinct ridge, as in Scceargus.") "The arms bear dorsal and ventral membranes. The ventral margins are unusually large and extend to the tip of all arms. They are not restricted to the ventral surface but also extend to the dorsal margin of the neighboring ventral arms, where they again continue to the tip, but are more weakly developed.". … .[3] (Check on source 3, successful, p.375 last paragraph to p.376) "The high proportion of immature females obtained in the survey (76%) and the low proportion of mature females (10%) could indicate that the spawning season is finishing at the beginning of the autumn. Moreover, the wide size range of the sampled population, with a considerable number of small individuals (possibly only a few days old), suggests the existence of an extended reproduction period.".[5] (Check on source 5, successful, "Biological data on V. togata are almost nonexistent. The highproportion of immature females obtained in the survey (76%) andthe low proportion of mature females (10%) could indicate that the spawning season is finishing at the beginning of the autumn. Moreover, the wide size range of the sampled population, with a considerable number of small individuals (possibly only a few days’old), suggests the existence of an extended reproduction period.") "the possession of (a) a funnel organ composed of two separate pieces, (b) a sigmoid bend in the hectocotylized arm, and (c) the development of extensive lateral membranes on the arms". … [4] (Check on source 4, successful, "The following characters agree with those of Lycoteuthis :- (1) The presence of circnmanal and brancliinl light-oipns (2) the sliape of the funnel organ; (3) the presence of a valve in the funnel; (4) the general bodily shape ; (5) tlie generid shape of the gladius (text-fig. 3), in which the lateral area expands about half-way down the gladius, contracts and expands agtin at the extremity. In this form, however, the apical expansion is much broader than in Lycoteuthis. ('I Rnnlorganeu " and " ventralorganen ") ; (6) The buccal membrsne (cf. Pfeffer, 1912, pl. xiv. fig. 3).") Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Thorough check on sources. Cross-checked with other FAs: Porbeagle, Acrocanthosaurus, Akodon spegazzinii, Procellariidae , Albatross, Albertosaurus, Aleeta curvicosta, Velociraptor , Allosaurus, Alpine Chough, Ambondro mahabo, Archaeoindris, Voalavo. Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (PD)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Check for copyright status:  Done Free Check for non-free content (WP:NFC): None Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR): NA 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done

As per the above checklist, the issues identified are:

• The lead and the layout needs to be fixed.

This article is a very promising GA nominee. I’m glad to see your work here. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 05:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for the review. I am not even going to try to respond to your comments inside of the collapse boxes; everything is too tightly packed in. I will respond below instead.

• I have expanded the lead, and it should now include the main points from every section.
• Regarding your concern about the use of "Indian Ocean", I don't see it as being an issue. The cited location for the species is "off the coast of South Africa, Mozambique, and Tanzania". These are all the southeast coast of Africa, and the body of water off the east of Africa is the Indian Ocean. It would be the same as saying "Off the coast of Boston, in the Atlantic Ocean" or "Off the coast of California, in the Pacific ocean". If you really have an issue with it, we can get rid of it, though.
• MOS:PARAGRAPHS doesn't explicitly prohibit single sentence paragraphs, it says that that they should be minimized. The conservation section is, I feel, a place where it should be an accepted exception. Generally the conservation section would be longer; it would detail why the species has the assessment it has, any threats to the species that might put it at risk, and so on. In this case, the species has never been assessed for conservation status, and the scientific community simply doesn't know enough about it to have anything else to say on the matter. Single sentence paragraphs are something that I agree should be avoided, but in this case I don't see any better options. I suppose it could be merged into the bottom of the "Habitat and distribution" section, but it would still be a single sentance paragraph (just not a single sentence section).

I think that's all of your concerns. Please let me know your thoughts. Since we're in opposite time zones, you should feel free to make either of the changes in the second and third bullet points above yourself, if you feel it best to do so. I copy-edit the articles that I do GAN reviews for all the time, and rarely does anyone object. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! You're right, I misjudged it. Apologies. The article looks perfect now. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, everything looks good now. Passing the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)