Talk:Homarus gammarus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ucucha 20:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way the measurements are given is somewhat confusing: what is the typical length for an adult?

Adults continue to grow until they die, so there isn't really a typical size, merely a minimum (size at sexual maturity), and then a typical size for lobsters considered a worthy catch. The only other measurement I remmeber seeing quoted is a maximum, which is even less representative. I'll keep my eye out for anything else. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, perhaps change the "typical for large specimens" into something more explicit.

Done I found an alternative source, which is slightly less authoritative, but does give clearer information. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Among the small, distinctive populations, where exactly is the Dutch one? Is it isolated in the IJsselmeer or the Zeeland waters?

The IJsselmeer is now freshwater, so it won't be there; I'll check the ultimate source tomorrow to see what details they give. That might also answer your next point. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done See below. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do both the widespread subpopulation and the Aegean subpopulation occur in other parts of the Mediterranean?

Done Sadly, it seems the review I was quoting from overinterpreted the results a little. The sampling in Triantafyllidis et al. (2005) was, in general, good, but there was only one location in the Netherlands, namely the Oosterschelde. The next nearest sampling sites were in the North Sea and English Channel. It may therefore be that the distinct population is restricted to the Oosterschelde, or it could range from Wangerooge to Calais; that study wouldn't be able to tell the difference. The review's addition of "especially the Aegean" is also unfortunate. All the Mediterranean samples that were included ended up clustering together; it's just that there were more samples from the Aegean than elsewhere, for some reason. I have re-worded that section, and also cited the original study. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The average reader is probably unfamiliar with the practice of giving authorities directly after (or as part of, depending on your point of view) scientific names, with no punctuation intervening. Since authorities are generally in small type in infoboxes and elsewhere, I thought it would help to set them off from the remaining prose. A non-taxonomist could easily be confused by the otherwise ungrammatical sentence. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why putting such text in small type would not create a confusing impression to the general reader. (However, if the other issues are resolved, I'll pass the article regardless of this point.) Ucucha 02:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be a Direction of the Commission, not the Code? Also, how can you cite something about a 1956 Direction to a 1955 paper?

Done Yes, that should have read "Commission"; now changed. The citation was only meant to apply to the later sentence, so I have added a citation for the earlier sentence. Since it doesn't explicitly mention 1956, I have removed that date; it's true, but would require an extra citation and isn't particularly important. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Yes, my mistake; now corrected. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (and my apologies for the delay); I will now pass the article. Ucucha 21:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]