Talk:Hemigrapsus estellinensis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 21:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a very interesting subject. I'm just claiming this one now, and I'll give the review later tonight or tomorrow morning. J Milburn (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to make it clearer earlier on that it's extinct- it should be in sentence one, unless we're not certain that it is.

Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You bounce between past and present tense in the description section

Done. Now all in present tense. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"by 240 t per day." What does "t" stand for?

Done. Used {{convert}}. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the primary source, there seems to be a lot more details available in terms of physical description- is there any reason not to include them? I also note the details about the eggs, and slightly more detailed comparisons to other species.

Done, I think. If you can see anything else that you think worthy of inclusion, I'll try to work it in. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worth mentioning that the species is named after the locality? A taxonomy section would be a possibility- that could include the collection details and its relationship with other species in the genus. With articles like this, even the small details are probably worth including- there's plenty of space!

Not done. I have checked and double-checked the paper, and I can't see that Creel ever says so explicitly. It's perfectly obvious that the species is named after the location, but that doesn't ever seem to be stated outright. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of categories which may be worth adding: Category:Extinctions since 1500, Category:Species made extinct by human activities, Category:Extinct invertebrates (there doesn't seem to be anything more specific) and Category:Extinct animals of the United States

Done. I so rarely deal with recent extinctions that I overlooked these categories. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest a non-free image, but as the holotype and paratypes still exist, that probably wouldn't meet the NFCC. We'll just have to wait until Creel's works fall into the public domain- a few decades yet!
To make sure there was nothing missed in terms of sources, I had a look around, and found an interesting article. While that blog post is certainly not a reliable source, unless the author can be shown to be an expert, it does mention that there are some thoughts on the species in Ecology and Classification of North American Freshwater Invertebrates (Thorp & Covich, 2001). Is that something you'd be able to get hold of? There's not a copy in my library- you could just use the page reference from the blog post, but I can say from experience that that isn't always a good idea.

That blog post (which is what first alerted me to the species) is in the External Links. I'll try and dig out the book, because at the moment that's the only hypothesis we've got for the bizarre distribution. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just requested the book from my institution's library stacks. It should be available within the next few days. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I checked, but it's not available in my library. J Milburn (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It does indeed say exactly what the blog quoted, on page 964 (even though the Index says it's on p. 960). Sadly, it says nothing more of use. Although the chapter is supposed to be about Decapoda (generally), it explicitly limits itself to freshwater crayfish and shrimp very early on. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these thoughts were helpful. This really is an interesting subject- I'd love to see the article go as far as possible. J Milburn (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very helpful. I think I've dealt with everything you've mentioned so far. Any further suggestions? --Stemonitis (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few last things-

The tenses still seem inconsistent in the description section.

Done – fixed one stray "had".

Concerning the pool's measurement, the foot measurement seems to be to the nearest five, so having anything more precise than whole metres is not really appropriate.

Done – rounded to nearest metre.

You appear to give two depths; it's really not clear what's meant by that.

Done – reworded; I think it's clearer now.

The line about the living specimens seems tacked on where it is right now; would it perhaps fit elsewhere?

Done – moved to the paragraph on collections, which makes sense I think.

If you can deal with these, I'd be happy to promote. The lack of detail in the original article may well mean that this couldn't become a featured article, unless a little more speculation about it could be found in a reliable source. J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great- promoting now. Very interesting article; it's a shame there's not so much out there about this species. As an aside, this is the 100th GA review I have completed. J Milburn (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! And many thanks. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]