Talk:Mollusca/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am reviewing this Good Article nomination and should have the full review up shortly. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 05:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

#:: Some sections have bracketed definitions of technical terms. While this is necessary to an extent, perhaps it might be better to simply have just links? (Or maybe it isn't. I'll leave the decision about whether to change that up to you, and I won't consider it in deciding whether to pass or fail the article; it's just a suggestion)

~~Spelling mistakes exist, please fix them.~~
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

~~#::The link in reference 8 does not directly link to its intended target (it redirects me to a main journal page, not the article in question. Please fix this if it is possible to do so.~~

Reference 8 needs its formatting fixed

References 9 and 10 are duplicates, and need page numbers

References 4 and 11 are duplicates

References 1 and 24 are duplicates

The doi in reference 40 is a broken link

Reference 33 is formatted differently from others

Fix reference 57

The doi in reference 51 is a broken link

Reference 62 is a broken link

Reference 69 should be fixed

"The "generalized mollusc" has two paired nerve cords, or three in cephalopods." [in lead] and "There are at least two pairs of main nerve cords (three in bivalves^[13])" [in Definition]. A contradiction.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

~~#:: Image:Schistosomiasis_itch.jpeg needs it's caption fixed~~

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Overall this is very close to GA. It just needs a little work to push it over the boundary. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 06:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the typos and the image caption and have crossed out resolved concerns. I'll wait for the remaining issue to be resolved, although I expect to promote this article soon. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If the editor who recommended Ponder & Lindberg (2008) doesn't come through by Monday evening, I'll replace the stats with the ones in my text book (2005) - global species counts are just educated guesses any way. -- Philcha (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Miss Madeline, thanks for stepping up to review this.

Bracketed definitions of technical terms

I'm quite keen on Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible, and think that immediate explanations hold less risk of breaking the reader's train of thought. I've also found in the past that articles that might appear to be suitable link targets have probems - stubs, too technical and, specially with anatomical terms, often too human- / vertebrate oriented. In one extreme case a buddy and I got Anus moved to Human anus because the content was quite inappropriate for invertebrates! Just wait until we get on to Coelom - the medics have few surprises coming! -- Philcha (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

Will do simplest first, as handling dups will change numbering: -- Philcha (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The link in reference 8 7 does not directly link to its intended target (it redirects me to a main journal page, not the article in question."

Must have been added by someone trying to be helpful, as it didn't use a citation template - it does now, and I found a link to free full PDF.

"Reference 8 needs its formatting fixed"

Fixed

"The doi in reference 40 is a broken link"

Dunno what's happened, can't find the title in Google. Different journals have different approaches to keeping stuff online, and I've noticed Lethaia's policy is ungenerous. DOI removed.

"Reference 33 is formatted differently from others" for some reason it used {{tl:citation}} rather than {{cite journal}}. Now uses {{cite journal}}. IMO it's a bug in the system that the 2 templates give slightly different outputs, they should never have been allowed to diverge.
"Fix reference 57"

Oops! Fixed.

"The doi in reference 51 is a broken link"

I notice the correct DOI has [...] while the incorrect one had [[...]] Fixed. Do you know of any bots that that attempt to fix wikilinks?

Reference 62 is a broken link"

Publisher consolidated 3 pages but failed to add 301 redirect (grrrrr!). Fixed.

"Reference 69 should be fixed"

Fixed -- Philcha (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates:

"References 9 and 10 are duplicates, and need page numbers"

They're separate dictionary entries, so keywords are more helpful than page nums as the content will also be present in later editions. {{cite book}} does not recognise the "contribution" param (grrRR!), changed to {{citation}}. -- Philcha (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"References 1 and 24 are duplicates"

De-duplicated. Ref 2 is the same. There's a further problem - the ref is incomplete as as it's a compilation and the author & title of the contribution are not given - some past editor has failed to do their chores (grrRRRRRRR!). I don't have the book and Google Books is no help in this case (gives ordering details only, no extracts). I've asked the person who recommended refs to Ponder & Lindberg to help. -- Philcha (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed refs to Ponder & Lindberg (2008) as no-one's come forward with the required info. Added 1 source for species counts and others for descriptions and habitats in "Classification" section. Species count goes down from Ponder & Lindberg's 250,000 to "only" 93,000. The range I found while searching was generally 70,000 to 100,000. The source I used specifically says "described species", i.e. recognized in scientific publications, so at least I know what the counts mean. I can only assumed the figures quoted from Ponder & Lindberg (2008) include a guesstimate of undiscovered species, which would be rather speculative & subjective.

Also removed class Tentaculita† from taxobox as not mentioned in any of the refs I've seen. -- Philcha (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"References 4 and 11 are duplicates"

Yes, they were dupes, but not any more. A page num is given (702), the problem is that the template just shows the number without identifying it as a page. IMO this is a template bug. For example if this article is translated into some language whare "p." is not the abbreviation for "page" the translators have to change all page nums in refs, which makes the use of templates pointless. I'm aware of this problem in {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}} and {{citation}}, and have proposed a restructuring of citation templates to avoid such problems by making the "public" citation templates just check the params and then pass them to a common formatting template, but bureaucratic inertia has prevailed. -- Philcha (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content problems

"The "generalized mollusc" has two paired nerve cords, or three in cephalopods." [in lead] and "There are at least two pairs of main nerve cords (three in bivalves[13])" [in Definition]. A contradiction.

It's a fair cop guv. Lead now says "bivalves". -- Philcha (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about "related Wiki projects"

IMO the related projects add no value whatever to this article, and will just put readers off the related projects. This would be a shame, as they do sometimes add value, see e.g. Howard Staunton. I'd like to remove the "related Wiki projects" boxes frmo this article. What do you think? -- Philcha (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean the box near the end linking to searches of "Mollusca" in the Commons, Wiktionary etc. In my opinion the big box linking the searches can be removed, but the smaller boxes could stay with a link to Mollusca on the commons added, but I won't fail the article over this. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the link to Commons, I've added it, thanks! Deleted the box near the end linking to searches of "Mollusca" in ... The dichotomous key thing will be good for school kids. Wikispecies is deeply unimpressive, but I'll give it the benefit for now. -- Philcha (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion

I feel that all concerns have been addressed, so I am promoting the article. Great job and keep up the good work! Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]