Jump to content

Talk:Crassispira incrassata

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. 20 upper (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Crassispira incrassata/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 20 upper (talk · contribs) 12:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

[edit]

Before the end of the day, I believe I can complete this review. 20 upper (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be done, please be patient while I look through the references. This could take some time. 20 upper (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@20 upper:, citation issue resolved. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 04:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished my review. 20 upper (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@20 upper:, Done. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 18:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • The first sentence confuses the reader, I suggest removing a marine gastropod mollusk
 Done
  • Fix the intertidal zones link
 Done
  • First described in 1834 by George Brettingham Sowerby I, C. incrassata went on to serve as the holotype specimen for the Crassispira genus; though its current taxonomic rank is unclear. Rephrase this, I don't think this snail "served" anything.
 Done
  • Crassispira incrassata is a species of sea snail located in the family Pseudomelatomidae. Drop "located"
 Done
  • Remove which is now considered a synonym – You don't need to include this.
 Done
  • ITIS considers Crassispira bottae a synonym of C. incrassata but the World Register of Marine Species does not. Seems like WP:SYNTH
 Done, cut sentences and reworded
  • The length of the shell varies varies => ranges
 Done
  • The rhynchodeum sphincter is large, posteriorly located, and contiguous with the proboscis wall. The proboscis retractor muscles are large and connected to the rhynchodeum. The proboscis runs half the length of and is coiled inside the rhychodeum. The buccal tube has two anterior sphincters and a sac-like structure. There is an epithelial pad but no intermediate sphincter. Both the buccal tube wall and proboscis wall are thick, but the buccal lips and buccal sac are thin and small.[10] The buccal mass is thickly walled and very large relative to the snail. The oesophagus runs between the buccal mass and nerve ring. The salivary glands and circular muscle are also very large relative to the snail's size. The venom gland is ciliated before opening up into the buccal cavity behind the oesophagus. The odontophore is medium-size and made of a single layer of cells that forms a pair of unfused cartilage. The radula consists of wishbone-shaped teeth; the marginal tooth measuring at 180 μm in length.[10] Why not cite citation 10 once, at the end of the paragraph?
 Done
  • The proboscis runs half the length of and is coiled inside the rhychodeum. Rephrase, is the proboscis half the length of the rhychodeum? The flow is very off.
 Done
  • The buccal mass is thickly walled and very large relative to the snail. Relative in what? In size? Specify.
 Done
  • The odontophore is medium-size and made of a single layer of cells that forms a pair of unfused cartilage. Grammatical error detected; it is medium-sized not medium-size
 Done
  • Distribution and habitat seems way too short to be a subheading
 Not done, I agree that it's short, but MOS doesn't explicitly forbid short subsections. Many GAs have short subsections like this.
Example? 20 upper (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Boquila, Anomochilus weberi, and Little blue heron all have 1 to 2 sentence sections/subsections in them. MOS only says to try to avoid them, species articles are often exceptions to this because most species, by definition, meet WP:NOTE but many lack broad coverage. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 18:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any references on its diet, reproduction or behavior?
I wish!!! This was all I could find!!
  • Add the {{cvt}} template for 180 μm
The convert template doesn't go that low. I added a manual conversion, even though it's very small.
  • This marine species => It
 Done, replaced with 'C. incrassata'
  • Citation 3 should be fixed.
 Done
  • In the lead, change endemic through to endemic to
 Done
  • unlink species, sea snail, family in Taxonomy,
 Done
  • unlink sexually in Description
 Done
  • Unlink common country names like Mexico and Ecuador
 Done
  • No caption for lead image
 Done
  • Citation 1 doesn't support The species was later reclassified as Crassispira incrassata following William John Swainson's establishment of the Crassispira genus, for which the holotype specimen of Pleurotoma bottae was used as the type species.
 Done, added a source
  • Earwig detected no copyvio
  • Citations are reliable

Review against criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
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.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Rjjiii talk 03:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Etriusus (talk). Self-nominated at 13:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Crassispira incrassata; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • GA new enough and long enough, article is cited and sources are Reliable and neutral. Hook is cited and the confirmed, but the hook is more "confident" then the taxonomy actually is, which rejects the southern population suggestion just as often as accepts.--Kevmin § 16:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, everything looks good to go.--Kevmin § 16:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crassispira_incrassata&oldid=1210083543"