Jump to content

Talk:Scaly-foot gastropod/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: Jan.Kamenicek (talk · contribs) 19:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


A very nice article about an extremely interesting snail!

Some notes after the first quick look:

  • I think it is necessary for this text to be proofread by a native speaker thoroughly. Some wordings are quite awkward and also articles do not always seem to be used properly.
Done today. Invertzoo (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its heart is unusually large for any animal proportionally" However, the given source does not seem to compare the Scaly-foot gastropod's heart to other animals.
I can be added that, heart of human is 1.3% of the body volume.
That would be good. However, the sentence say, that it is unusually large for ANY animal, which I understand that no other animal with such a proportionally large heart exists. This may be true (I do not know), but the given source does not support it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC) It is there, my mistake. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • "Its incorrect spelling variant include Crysomallon squamiferum."
  • a) maybe there should be plural "variants"??
I added it to synonyms in the taxobox.
  • b) does it mean that there are more common incorrect spelling variants? If so, why was just this one chosen to be mentioned here?
That is an exceptional error from times, when the species was not officially described.
 Done The sentence has been reworded and now it sounds much better. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The generic name Chrysomallon is from Greek language and means "golden haired", because pyrite (a compound of its shell) is named fool's gold." What is the exact wording of this fact in the source (as it is not publicly available)? It seems to me that the pyrite gives the shell a golden-like look, which I would consider to be the reason for its name. It is true that pyrite is called fool's gold, but I am not sure whether this vernacular name of the mineral played a bigger role in naming the gastropod than the simple gold-like appearance.
The animal has not gold appearance. The animal's shell has black appearance. The scientific name is really derived from fool's gold.
 Done The sentence has been reworded and now it sounds much better. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Peltospiridae snails mainly live in eastern Pacific vent fields, so existence of scaly-foot gastropods in Indian Ocean suggests relationship of hydrothermal vent fauna between these two areas." I suggest rewording of the second part of the sentence: "...so the existence of scaly-foot gastropods in the Indian Ocean suggests that hydrothermal vent fauna of these two areas is related".
That is tricky. I would like to avoid unnecessary generalization or specialization. So I added "Nakamura et al. hypothetized, that ...". Moreover there were described new peltospirids from the same area (Gigantopelta aegis) and from other areas as well (Gigantopelta chessoia). I am not sure if it could affect this info. --Snek01 (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The sclerite has a soft epithelial tissue core, conchiolin cover and upper most cover contain pyrite and greigite." Do you mean something like "The sclerite has a soft epithelial tissue core and a conchiolin cover. The uppermost layer of the cover contains pyrite and greigite"?
Yes, it is the same.
 Done The sentence has been reworded and now it sounds much better. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(three-point bending stress test: 12.06 MPa)" A sentence would be better.
I added it to the sentence. Except of the value.
 Done --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sclerites are not homolougous to an operculum"
    a) Why is this info mentioned together with the info about the mechanical strength of the sclerites?
I moved it to the the first part of the Scleritec section.
 Done --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • b) Why is it mentioned at all? Has anybody considered them homologous?
Information about existence of operculum was published in 2012 and it was thought "that [operculum] may have some relationships to the sclerites" in those times.
If so, can the context be explained in the article as well? Otherwise it is not clear, why it is mentioned there (there are many things which are not homologous to an operculum, so it should be explained, why only this one is mentioned).
  • "...sclerites are also not homolougous to sclerites of chitons." May I ask for an explanation of this sentence?
For example rear legs of amphibians are homologous to legs humans (these structures have the same origin). But sclerites of scaly-foot gastropods developed from different structures than sclerites of chitons.
I see, so you probably mean "Sclerites of scaly-foot gastropods are not homolougous to sclerites of chitons." (I am sorry, but I am a real layperson in this field and so I do not always understand what may be clear to you).
Does it mean that they are homologous to sclerites of molluscs other than chitons, such as Solenogastres or Caudofoveata? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good question. It has not been tested if sclerites of Solenogastres or Caudofoveata are homologous to scaly-foot gastropod. But it seems to be not probable. There is another working hypothesis and I added it to the article. --Snek01 (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done OK, thank you.
I added "of scaly-foot gastropods" to the sentence as I suggested above, because the previous version saying that "sclerites are not homologous to sclerites of chitons" really did not make sense to me. (To explain the difference: I can understand the sentence saying that "legs of crocodiles are different from legs of penguins", but the sentence saying that "legs are different from legs of penguins" does not seem good to me, no matter that the crocodiles were discussed before.) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The surface of sclerites host a diverse variety of epibionts... These Bacteria probably provide mineralization of sclerites."
    a) This is one of more sentences where some terms are unnecessarily repeated and where pronouns should be used instead. ("mineralization of sclerites" can be replaced by "their minerization"). Again, a look of a native speaker at the article would help. (Another example: The Solitaire field is in depth of 2606 m and its size is approximately 50 m by 50 m. Scaly-foot gastropods live near high-temperature diffuse fluids of chimneys in the Solitaire field.)
OK, improved.
 Done --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • b) I think "bacteria" is usually used with minuscule "b".
Both are possible (scientific name is Bacteria; vernacular name is bacteria). OK, unified to minuscule.
 Done --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some non-breaking spaces, but it would be good to check them throughout the text.
done.
 Done I added some more. Hopefully, they are all. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conversion template needs to be used in more places than it is, e. g. in the captions of the pictures in the section Operculum (and other places).
done.
a) It is much better to write {{convert|2400|-|2800|m|abbr=on}}, which gives "2,400–2,800 m (7,900–9,200 ft)", than {{convert | 2400 | m | mi |abbr=on}}–{{convert | 2800 | m | mi |abbr=on}}, which gives 2,400 m (1.5 mi)–2,800 m (1.7 mi).
b) I think there are still some more to be added, such as in the sentence "The distance between Kairei and Solitaire is about 700 km." and others. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think miles are good for such large common dimensions, but when there are dimensions more precise, then ft are used. Template was added to distances too. --Snek01 (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not express myself clearly. It was not the unit (mi x ft) used that I wanted to point out, but the way of introducing the imperial units. I wanted to say: It is much better to write {{convert|2400|-|2800|m|mi|abbr=on}}, which gives "2,400–2,800 m (1.5–1.7 mi)", than {{convert | 2400 | m | mi |abbr=on}}–{{convert | 2800 | m | mi |abbr=on}}, which gives 2,400 m (1.5 mi)–2,800 m (1.7 mi).
Thanks! Corrected. --Snek01 (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, "rhiphidoglossate" replaced to "rhipidoglossan type". The reader will find information in the wikilinked radula article Radula#The_seven_basic_types.
 Done --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The formula of the radula is ∼50 + 4 + 1 + 4 + ∼50." Can you explain this?
It is also explanined in the radula article. I added the wikilink Radula#Radula_formulae.
 Done --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grouping the digits in large numbers should be consistent withing the article. E. g. in the lead there is the number 2,400 (with a comma, which is done by the conversion template), while in the section Habitat there is the number 2415 (without a comma). This would be better to be unified.
It is unified now.
I noticed "The Solitaire field is at a depth of 2,606 m" x "The Longqi vent field is in a depth of 2780 m". It will get unified automatically if you use the conversion template here as well. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I added some conversion templates which solved the grouping-digit problem as well. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They thrive in environment with high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and in low concentrations of oxygene." Is it known why?
It was measured by scientific submarines. "Thrive" can be changed to "live" if needed.
  • "Shrimps were not recorded in Longqi vent field." I suppose that not only shrimps, but also many more other species were not recorded here. Why is it useful to mention just shrimps?
Shrimps are usually dominant in vent fields, therefore apparent absence of shrimps is suprising information. Unfortunately the complete fauna of Longqi was not published yet (as far as I know).
So what about Shrimps (usually dominant in vent fields) were not recorded in Longqi vent field.
Good suggestion. Improved. --Snek01 (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is currently unclear whether this species has other mechanisms of feeding." Which other mechanisms have been considered?
Other possible mechanism of feeding is normal feeding of something and ingesting it by mouth. But it is not known if this snail eat any normal food.
So could "other mechanisms of feeding" be replaced by the specific mechanism described above? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I added clarification for general public: "(for example it is not known if it uses its radula for eating any normal food)". --Snek01 (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They survived in aquaria under the atmospheric pressure for more than three weeks." How long do they live in their natural habitats?
I do not know. I think, that such information has never been published.

--Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notes. I commented each of them. --Snek01 (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its size is approximately 50 m by 50 m." Do you mean "diameter"?
I think the word "size" is fine to use here. Invertzoo (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done OK. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The prose is fine in these two sentences. Invertzoo (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thank you. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review of the individual GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    I believe the language is OK after it was checked by a native speaker (User:Invertzoo). Things remaining to solve are the conversion templates. They should be either used for all metric units (which I prefer slightly) or none of them (which is acceptable in scientific articles). Currently they are sometimes used and sometimes not. For more on this topic see the first part of the review above.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    It addresses the main topic very well, though some minor things mentioned in the first part of this review remain to be solved.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Only some minor things remain to be addressed and the article is heading to its GA status soon. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am satisfied with the level of the article a agree with promoting it to GA. Thanks to User:Invertzoo for proofreading and congratulations to it author User:Snek01! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scaly-foot_gastropod/GA1&oldid=1143157754"