Talk:Love dart/GA1

GA Review

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

I will review this article. Diderot's dreams (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review

This is a great article. The topic is covered thoroughly in an engaging and informative style. The article is well organized, the prose crystal clear and grammatically correct. Plenty of appropriate illustrations complement the text. The article isn't overly technically written, as can happen in a science article, but there are still some terms that can be explained or replaced by simpler terms. The article is well sourced, and the relevant portions of the Manual of Style required for GA are followed.

There are some miscellaneous exceptions to the GA criteria that need fixing, but they are not really anything to stop the article from being promoted in the end. The most important is that two of the article's sources are not reliable. Still, they are not used heavily. These sources may be replaceable with the sources that they themselves use.

Below are the specific GA issues needed to be resolved to promote the article. I preceed each one with a bullet, and I'll place (Done) right after the bullet when it is corrected to standards. If I change my mind about something, I'll cross it out. Comments about something being completed or needing clarification or disagreement can be placed under the issues like a talk page response. I'll respond in kind, as quickly as is practical. And of course questions or comments by anyone are welcome. Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources

These two unreliable sources will have to go:

1) ~~Snail's Tales-- is a blog without any editorial review. The blog post cited has references, you might be able to use those instead.~~

OK, we will try to see if we can use the original references. (I did want to point out that "Snail's Tales" is certainly not your average blog: Aydin Örstan is a professional malacologist, a Research Associate in the Section of Mollusks, Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, PA, U.S.A. OK, it's true that the blog is not peer-reviewed, but Aydin's reputation as a malacologist rides on it, so it is pretty reliable. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'll investigate the acceptability of this some more. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The verifiability policy addresses this. It says that self-published sources are unacceptable, explicity mentioning blogs. But it makes exception for ones by experts about their fields of expertise. So this is acceptable. Diderot's dreams (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2) (Done) Redtailboa.net-- is a forum. It seems an article from somewhere else was posted there. Maybe it can be found.

OK, this article started off here: [1], so we should change the reference. Invertzoo (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reliable source :) Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although it doesn't back up the cited claim. But the forum reference has been removed. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Done) One is used for a potentially controversial statement, I've marked it with a fact tag. And there is one other statement in the article that is a bit 'out there' and doesn't have a specific citation. Again, I've marked it with a fact tag.

One of these facts is shown in a New Scientist photo. Is that OK as a source of info or not? The dart is sticking out the other side of the snail's head. I am sorry, I haven't done this kind of fine-tuning before, does that count as original research? Invertzoo (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source is reliable by Wikipedia standards. The photo shows that it can happen, but not really how often. Is it sometimes, rarely, or frequently? The source doesn't say, and so you're doing a little original research. I'd look for another source. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording so that there is no mention of the frequency of this occurring. Invertzoo (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that will work. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the other fact, that it takes time to make a new dart, I will try to research that one. Invertzoo (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article with the aforementioned photo says it takes a week. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great, thanks for noticing that. That can be the reference for that fact too. Invertzoo (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference helps, but it doesn't prove that the snails fairly often mate without darts. They could just wait until they have one. So there's still some research to do on this. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me see if I can track down a reference for this thing about snails mating without using a dart (because they haven't made a new one yet.) If we can't actually find a ref for this then we will remove it. Invertzoo (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found a reference for that. It's about 2/3 way down the second section (called "Application of a love dart"), here: [2]

Great. Don't like to loose information. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon

(Done) Jargon that can be explained or replaced (suggestions I thought of are in parenthesis):

Morphology (Form and structure)

Changed Added explanation into the text as well as a blue link Invertzoo (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have replaced the term, but that will work. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Chitenous (made from chitan and calcium)~~

Changed Added explanation into the text: Chitinous (composed of chitin)

~~Calcareous~~

Changed Added explanation into the text: calcareous (composed of the calcium carbonate). --Snek01 (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was concerned about the terms use in lead without definition, but I think now that it was OK to wait to explain them. So the article text was fine as it was orginally. It's OK now too, of course, but I really think the original was more concise. Anyway, I'm withdrawing the comments. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pulmonate (that have lungs)

Pulmonate term is irreplaceable with more explainable. It can be replaced with scientific term Pulmonata if needed. --Snek01 (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed Added explanation into the text as well as a blue link Invertzoo (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That works very well. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bifurcated

(?Changed) I think it has already been change to "two-part"? Invertzoo (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"bifurcated" is in the second paragraph of the "Species Variability" section. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I found it. Changed I blue-linked it and gave an explanation too. Invertzoo (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That works. You could also simplify the explanation: In some cases the blades on the sides of the dart are bifurcated, or divided into two parts. Smoother. Diderot's dreams (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I streamlined it a bit as you suggested. Invertzoo (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Predation (hunting)

Changed I rewrote this small section to make it clearer Invertzoo (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using the word "prey" that everyone understands makes it clear what predation is. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that "penial (the correct spelling) stylet" also needed explaining, so I did that too. Invertzoo (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch, that really could use it. How about something shorter, instead of: (in other words this is not an accessory organ for sperm transfer, as is found in some nudibranchs, distantly related sea slugs.) how about this:(it is not an accessory organ for sperm transfer)? This is the intro, after all. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that is much better, thanks! I cropped it as you suggested. Invertzoo (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues

(Done) (see the scanning electron microscope images and the family tables with drawings below) The lead should be able to stand alone, so mentions like this don't belong.

Changed, User:Snek01

(Done) (the actual material of the dart is not mentioned in the cited source) Can we be reasonably sure it is one of the other three? If so, maybe the vestigial information could be moved to the Evolution section. In any case the article can't have notes to other editors in the text.

Changed Yes, I think we can be sure that the material of the vestigial darts is one of the three mentioned. I moved this to Evolution as suggested. Invertzoo (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will work very well there. Now I am thinking "the paragraph could use some elaboration. Like what are "secondarily" and "vesitigal"? Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK I defined those two words and degenerated also, and blue-linked one of them. Invertzoo (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Done) The link to Ronald Chase is advertisy. The article text can further elaborate on him, if needed.

Changed I toned it down quite a lot, hopefully this is OK now? Invertzoo (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering only to the external link. Please unlink it. The rest I didn't have any objection to. But now that reread it, mentioning the location of the university is a bit advertisy (for an encyclopedia article). Oh, and "malacologist" needs an explanation. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm sorry, I read what you wrote too fast and misunderstood. I removed the link, and defined the word malacologist. I left the name of the university because that can be important to biologists who may read the article: they might know how well-respected (or not) that particular university's department of invertebrate zoology is. Invertzoo (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AmorI.svg This Cupid tracing says it's traced from another free picture. However, I don't see Cupid in the other picture. So I'm wondering where this came from. I'll look into it further. We may need to replace it.

Hm, that is weird, thanks for checking into it! Invertzoo (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geronimo20 suggested we could use this image instead, if that one seems dubious in origin. It's not as graphically pleasing but it is OK I guess. Invertzoo (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note for the uploaded of the cupid tracing. Maybe there's an explanation. If this is still unresolved after everything else is done, you can change it to Love Resistance.jpg as that pic is copyright OK. Or just don't have a picture, if you want. One isn't required here for GA, but I do think Love Resistance.jpg is better than none. Diderot's dreams (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I heard via email from the editor who originally made the cupid image, about why the cupid image no longer relates to the image from which it was originally taken:

"That's simple, look at the file history, second link from 29 January 2006, [[3]]

"Seimos, probably an unexperienced user, replaced the original file with another unrelated file with the same name.

"Regards ~~helix84"

How do we proceed? Revert that 2006 change? Invertzoo (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helix is right, the file history indicates it was changed from a jpg picture that is identical to the tracing he made. This jpg picture was uploaded from the Polish Wikipedia, and I'm going to quit playing detective at this point since it's difficult to make my your around there if you're not a Polish speaker. So I will assume good faith, and we'll let this go. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Done) In the morphology by species tables, there is some information about shape that is in the reference column. For example, links to images and the text "the dart is thick and curved".

I guess this has been fixed already? Invertzoo (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it has be fixed, but things seem mixed up still. The image links shouldn't be in the reference column as such. You can use the page that has the image as a reference if it is a reliable source. If you just want to link to the picture just for the reader to go there for information, put the link in the shape column, under the diagram of the dart. Either way. Oh, and all references should be in the reference column. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More of it fixed now by Geronimo20 but maybe not fixed enough? Invertzoo (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These two entries: Helix pomatia and Zonitoides nitidus and excavatus still need attention. Diderot's dreams (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To finish up, I've replaced the non-breaking spaces with the HTML "Center" tag, which can be used for Wiki formatting. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're making progress :). Diderot's dreams (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm trying to get some more help from both of the other two editors who worked on this originally. Invertzoo (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all of the original comments have been addressed. I am seeing just one more thing-- there are two duplicate pictures of snails mating (same species even). Can we eliminate one of them? Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, yes, thanks, let me take one of those out. Invertzoo (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Love dart is now a Good Article! Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]