Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amastra subsoror/archive1

Amastra subsoror

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Amastra subsoror (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Amastra subsoror/archive1

Nominator(s): Sdkb (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This article, about an extinct Hawaiian land snail, is as clearly ready for FA status as any article I have ever seen. Per criterion 1b it "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context", as I cannot imagine anyone would want to know anything about this snail not found on the page. Per criterion 1e, it is extremely stable, having changed very little since August 2019. Finally, per criterion 4, it absolutely avoids "going into unnecessary detail". The other criteria are boring and can safely be ignored. Sdkb (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support - nothing to add. But I think this should be sent to a scientific journal, Wikipedia is not a worthy venue. FunkMonk (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support, not the largest article, but it is quality stuff. Good tone, ect. Refrenced. Infobox. The perfect stub? >>BEANS X2t 09:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments from KJP1

An interesting article on an often overlooked mollusc. Some comments for consideration below.

Lead

• A little short for an FAC? although it does seem to cover, if not comprise, the contents of the article.
• "The species was endemic to Maui" - while I appreciate that endemic may be the correct, technical term, I wonder if it is a little obscure for the general reader. To me, it sounds like they were crawling over every square inch of the place. "The species was found only in Maui..."?
• "is thought to have gone extinct" - "have become"? Also, I note that NatureServe goes only so far as to suggest it is "possibly extinct", while the Red List is more definitive. Is your "thought to have" sufficient?
• "the introduction of predators" - I think this could do with a little expansion, for which there's space. What predators and by whom were they introduced?
• "predators to its habitat, the destruction of its habitat" - the close repetition of "habitat" jars a little. Replace one with "territory/environment"?

(talk page stalker) Or simply shorten to 'due to the introduction of predators'. Which I think is clear enough and may help to prevent any criterion 4 objections. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

References

• Comprehensiveness

Somewhat surprised by the omission of Catalog of the Native Land and Freshwater Molluscs of the Hawaiian Islands; Cowie, Evenhuis and Christensen, 1995. Does that tome really have nothing to say of the snail?

Similarly, the detailed entry in Clench's New Names Introduced by H. A. Pilsbry in the Mollusca and Crustacea, here, [1], must surely warrant a mention.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game thinks it appropriate to record that the snail is not to be found in Idaho, [2]. I think we should too.

All in all, a most worthy effort. I look forward to supporting following consideration of the above. KJP1 (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Image review - pass

The article is adequately illustrated for its length. Both images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Consider adding alt text. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Khemehekis

While I was reading this article, I found a link to the category "Extinct gastropods", and noticed the article Maiden rocksnail. I was wondering: Is Maiden rocksnail even more worthy? Or should it be deleted altogether, since Wikipedia requires multiple sources, and the maiden rocksnail is only mentioned non-trivially in one source? Khemehekis (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.