Talk:Cape lobster/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 21:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mine. Review to follow in a few minutes. J Milburn (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps silly, but clarify it's a species of lobster, rather than a specfic lobster, as the lead sentence currently implies

Done. And I don't consider it silly. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to rehash my thoughts on the order of sections, as I have no reason to think my way is any better than yours. However, I think "Specimens" may work best as a subsection of "Distribution and ecology" or "Taxonomy and evolution"

Done. Moved to Taxonomy and evolution. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"These include five males at the South African Museum (Cape Town), two in the Natural History Museum (London), one in each of the East London Museum, the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie (Leiden) and the Albany Museum (Grahamstown), and one male and one female in the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle (Paris)." Implies they were collected from there. Perhaps change to "now kept at" or something, instead of just "at".

Done. Added "in the collections of". --Stemonitis (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you italicised some of the museum names? Per MOS:Ety, "A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to".

I have consistently italicised the ones in foreign (non-English) languages. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, that's not required by the MoS. We wouldn't be italicising Jacques Chirac or Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, despite the fact that they are clearly non-English. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning, but the MOS does indeed treat proper nouns differently (I suspect it was thinking more of towns and cities than institutions), so I have followed that.

You seem to alternate between referring to the species (and other species of lobster) by common name and by specific name.

This is a balance I always find difficult to strike. As a biologist, I naturally default to scientific names, but I am aware that the lay reader is more comfortable with common names. It is particularly difficult in this case, because the scientific names are necessary whenever contrasting Homarinus with Homarus, and are useful more generally to make it clear that The European and American lobsters are [together] in the genus Homarus, which would otherwise need to be explained somehow. I have tried to get round the problem by glossing the scientific names where they first appear. If it still seems awkward, I'll look at it again, but I'm not sure there is a perfect solution. We do need to use the scientific name in some circumstances, and policy dictates that we must use the common name as far as possible. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Homarus gammarus and Homarus americanus," Abbreviate second to H. americanus?

I think the reason I shied away from that was in case there was any confusion that it might be short for "Homarinus americanus", since both generic names start with "H". If you think that's unlikely, I'd be happy to abbreviate. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking of the two Homarus species

Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"the gonopores (openings of the oviducts) of female Cape lobsters are much larger than those of Homarus gammarus and Homarus americanus." Proportionally? Or actually?

This is a slightly difficult question to answer. I think the answer is that they are larger in absolute terms; the authors compared three specimens of similar size in the three species and found a difference in (if I'm reading it correctly) absolute size. I am not sure whether the gonopore would increase with overall body growth – my initial instinct is that it wouldn't, since it's probably constrained by the size of the eggs, and there's little reason to think that older females lay larger eggs. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The species reached its current classification in 1995, when the monotypic genus Homarinus was erected.[6]" By whom?

Done. I haven't come across Kornfield or Steneck elsewhere; Austin B. Williams crops up now and again, and could eventually be the subject of an article, but I have left him unlinked for now. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upon what basis is Category:Endangered species used?

Done. Oversight. Now removed. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"as Cancer (Astacus) capensis.[11][9]" Reorder refs?

Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title "Recent discoveries of the "rare" species Homarus capensis (Herbst, 1792) on the South African coast" implies that the authors may believe that the species is not all as rare as generally believed. Does anything in the article back that up? I think such speculation would be worth including.

That title, and particularly the scare quotes, rather overstates the contents of the paper. All the authors actually say explicitly about rarity is explained by the last sentence of our current Distribution and ecology section. They have more than doubled the number of known specimens, but it's still <35, which counts as "rare" in my book. The IUCN Red List entry, for instance, states that H. capensis "is a very rare species known from approximately 34 specimens".

For aesthetic purposes if nothing else, could the lead be a smidge longer?

Done, I think, depending on your definition of "smidge"! --Stemonitis (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally a decent article. There's information not included (diet, for instance), but, clearly, there isn't as much known about this species as others, so I am not at all concerned about that. J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looking again, the bouncing back and forth between common and specific names still doesn't seem quite right, but I am happy that this article is ready for GA status. I'll leave the issue as something to think about, perhaps something to be aware of in future articles. I personally just stick to specific names in my articles, which seems to be pretty standard for fungal articles; less so for animals with common names. J Milburn (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for a prompt review. I will see if anything comes to mind to smooth the common name / scientific name awkwardness. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]