Jump to content

Talk:Octopus/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 12:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi there, I'll review this soon. There doesn't seem to be much if any taxonomic history mentioned here, could we get some in-text authority for the scientific name, and maybe hear if there have been any historical disagreements on classification and content? FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking this. I'll get to taxonomy soon. LittleJerry (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added in a sentence on the coining of the order Octopoda. I looked through the books I have and there doesn't seem to be much on taxonomy classification history. LittleJerry (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The term "octopus" may also be used to refer specifically to the genus Octopus." I think this could be moved to the etymology or taxonomy section.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per practically all other featured articles about animals, I think the description/characteristics section should come before ecology/behaviour sections.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a related note, I don't see why the size section should be that far from the characteristics section. Preferably, there would be one physical characteristics section, and a separate one about behaviour and ecology. "Biology" seems so broad as to be meaningless; it would encompass the evolution section as well.
Separated sections. LittleJerry (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a mix of UK and US English, for example you have both "fibres" and "behavior", should be checked throughout.
I'm willing to go with UK English, I think it would be better if @Chiswick Chap: or @Cwmhiraeth: took this one. LittleJerry (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I see quite a few of these, also both has ise and ize. FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have been through the article with my spellchecker, and I hope it is all British English now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, I see the titles of some of the sources have been "corrected" too, though, their original spellings should be retained. FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are also still ise/ize inconsistencies (in their various tenses).

FunkMonk (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tried again! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the head and foot are at one end" You should spell out and link "molluscan foot" by first mention, to avoid confusion.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where the blood remain inside blood vessels" Remains?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "allows the arms to with some autonomy" To what?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent in whether you identify the species shown in photos and videos. Should do so in all.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "these are about one metre long" Convert.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "senescence" Explain. There are quite a few other unfamiliar terms that could be explained, should be looked at throughout.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cleavage is superficial" A bit hard to understand what this means.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the removal of both optic glands after spawning was found to result in the cessation of broodiness, the resumption of feeding, increased growth, and greatly extended lifespans" This is already briefly mentioned in the former section, perhaps they should be consolidated somehow.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You state they are not territorial, but how do they prevent other octopuses from stealing their dens?
I think they have several alternative dens. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some inconsistency in whether you refer to species with their common name or scientific names first throughout the article, and whether you abbreviate or not. For example, you have "The giant Pacific octopus, Enteroctopus dofleini", then "such as the giant Pacific octopus", then "which in the case of E. dofleini", and "Major items in the diet of Enteroctopus dofleini".
Done, as far as I can see. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also a good deal of duplinking, and you shouldn't have to mention scientific names after a common name after first occurrence.
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2005, some octopuses (Adopus aculeatus and Amphioctopus marginatus under current taxonomy) were found" Seems overly convoluted for no apparent reason. Why not just say "In 2005, Adopus aculeatus and Amphioctopus marginatus were found"...
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some octopuses, such as the mimic octopus, will move their arms in ways that emulate the shape and movements of other sea creatures." Needs source.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Octopuses have several secondary defences (that they use once they have been seen by a predator):" Why parenthesis?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems Pseudomorph does not link to the intended destination.
In the article linked, there's a section "Pseudomorph in other fields" and discusses biology. The link went straight to that section for me. LittleJerry (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cephalopods have existed for around 500 million years, although octopus ancestors were in the Carboniferous seas around 300 million years ago." Why "although"?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Extant cephalopod phylogeny" State what method was used (genetics rather than morphology).
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would seem the distinct "eggshell" of the Argonaut (animal) would warrant mention in the article body, especially since you mention it in a caption?
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the already long list under taxonomy show groups outside Octopoda?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to explain what RNA editing, otherwise the section doesn't make sense.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and behaviourally diverse of all invertebrates." Only stated in intro, which should not have unique info.
Its referring to the different behaviors like mimicking other sea creatures, using tools ect. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems I missed the "among" part... FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Around 300 species are recognized, which is over one-third of the total number of known cephalopod species." Likewise.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and probably the Gorgon of ancient Greece also." Last also is redundant.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would seem more aspects of their biology could be mentioned in the intro, which seems a bit short for the article length.
Lead expanded. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is a bit excessive to have so many very specific examples of octopuses in popular culture in the intro. It should be much more of a general summary, not a list of media. Especially since relatively little intro text is devoted to their biology.
The lead is probably more balanced now without reducing this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All octopuses are venomous" and " though some species are venomous". Contradiction.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would expect the "Legal protection" section to come after the "In science and technology" section, since the latter covers experimentation on octopuses to some extend.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the pop culture entries under human relations seem extremely WP:trivial. I'd expect there to be much broader things to say about octopuses in human culture, but I'll leave that discussion for the FAC. To me, much of the trivial stuff could be cut, leaving a shorter, yet more significant chunk of text, perhaps in fewer subsections. For example, why do we need to specify there's an octopus in Spongebob or Finding Dory? There are probably hundreds of octopuses in various cartoons.
Removed Finding Dory reference. I kept Spongebob since it is one of the notable and long lasting cartoon series.
I think we should go with the reviewer here, the last paragraph had a trivial tone compared with all the rest of the article, so although I'm sorry for the work done in creating it, I've removed it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You devote a great deal of text to how octopuses could theoretically be "farmed", yet say nothing about why this isn't done already, leaving the text rather pointless.
Trimmed down to one sentence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All looks good now, one last thing, I was a bit sad to see the photo of the shelled argonaut go (since it is pretty unique looking), perhaps it could replace one of the images of similar finned octopuses under taxonomy? FunkMonk (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's room for that! Image beside Taxonomy section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, that is all from me, will now pass. --FunkMonk (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Octopus/GA1&oldid=781638762"