Talk:Scotch bonnet (sea snail)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer --JimmyButler (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special Note: This article was part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2009 and was reviewed by the project leader. There is a risk for potential bias. The project's deadline was set at January 12, 2010.

Concerns

During the day, Scotch bonnets bury themselves in the sand, and at night, they feed ... I sought to verify that they were nocturnal. Your source does not support that claim. It is critical that information can be verified.
The 0.16 inches (0.41 cm) hole in its shell is traced back to the Scotch bonnet; this is not to be confused with the five natural holes that are commonly found in this animal. (Referencing Limpets) A nonsensical sentence in the introduction; that at best is out of place. There is a hole in key hole limpet - several apparently and the Scotch bonnet gets credit for one of them. You leave the reader to assume much…. The snail bites a hole? This results from “cherry picking” random facts and scattering them about; rather than researching and writing a comprehensive article.
It's body is similar to that of the general mollusk (Taken from the introduction). A filler sentence that contributes little to the readers understanding of this animal. In fact it is completely wrong; as there is no general mollusk plan that would lead to an understanding of this animal... they are a widely diversified group ranging from the Octopus to a slug. You would have been at least closer with the term "gastropod". Much of the concerns with this article center around your effort to make a generalized understanding of mollusk work in an article specific to the Scotch bonnet.
The taxonomy of the genus Semicassis is not completely settled. Perhaps not; but there must certainly be some information regarding its relationship to other mollusk. Its place on the evolutionary tree. In this section at least you could expand on the current thoughts behind its classification even if there is disagreement.
Scotch bonnet moves by sliding across a bed of slime, which is secreted from the glands at the bottom of its foot, in a rhythmic motion. Fortunately much of the convoluted sentence structure was dramatically improved; however, it is desperately in need of copy/edits to improve on clarity of statements. The loss of clarity here is apparent. Try this: They move in a rhythmic motion across a bed of slime that is produced by the muscular foot.
The snail’s shell is either coiled to the left or right. I suspect this is wrong. The shell coils to the left or to the right. Not both within the species. The side the aperture opens is a big deal in the shell world. I suspect this is the outcome of using information that is general to gastropods but not necessarily applicable to this particular species. This concern was raised by me in prior discussion - but went unaddressed?!
The mouth contains a tubular extension commonly known as a proboscis for feeding. They also has an extensible snout on the head. The concern here is reflected in the above statement. I'm highly skeptical of any information since the references used are generalizations concerning gastropods.
they also has an extensible snout. With three copy-editors someone should have caught this sentence. This is read by the world. Please capitalize they and fix the grammar (they... has).
The snail grows around a pillar inside the shell called the columella that is protected by a wall. Another cherry picked factoid that seems to be hanging in space. Does this line contribute to the understanding of this mollusk. It seems to require expansion. Why is a columella in need of protection? What is this wall to which you refer?
A snail's body is divided into three sections: head, foot and visceral sac. The mantle (pallium) represents a tissue fold coating the visceral sac. Introducing the information without some type of expansion is meaningless to the reader. This is filler information; added to increase content, but does absolutely nothing to help the reader better understand this snail. This reads like an invertebrate biology text book for college students. Make it relevant to this snail or leave it out.
The Scotch bonnet has four basic sense organs: tentacles, eyes and osphradia and statocysts. Drop an “and”
The tentacles contain tactile receptors. These chemoreceptor cells fold over each other to increase the chance for chemoreception. The tactile receptors are not chemoreceptor cells as you suggest in this passage. This question was raised earlier and remained unaddressed.
A pair of statocysts are located in the foot near the pedal ganglia, and are absent from sessile forms. This is random selection of gastropod info that is very misleading. Why mention the location of a statocysts – yet make no effort to define their function? There are no sessile Scotch Bonnets as you imply. This question was raised earlier and remained unaddressed.
Each eye is a simple pit that contains light sensitive photoreceptors and pigment cells. However, Barnes states that in higher gastropods, the pit is closed over and has differentiated into a cornea and lens. Barnes includes the Scotch bonnet in the loose category of "higher gastropods". Are you confident in your statement?
The blood of the Scotch Bonnet is isometric with the sea water. There seems to be an over-reliance on invertebrate vocabulary. Again - from randomly lifting sentences from Barnes without knowing enough to translate them into this encyclopedia forum. Try this: These gastropod adjust their internal salinity to match the environment.
The Embryogeny section should be merged with the Life Cycle Section.
The images have had a turbulent history. I've read the explanation; yet still fail to see why a different shell was inserted knowing it was not the same species with a request to add a disclaimer in the caption. Unfortunately, the much improved images of an actual Scotch bonnet were added after the deadline - thus are irrelevant to your grade. The belated effort of "post edit" damage control has been something of the history of this article. Throw it up - see what sticks. If that does not work try something else.
The reproduction section was lifted verbatim from Barnes Third Edition. Plagiarism is UNACCEPTABLE! I will stop here.... I refuse to spend time critiquing the work of Robert D Barnes PhD.

Current and past success on Wikipedia were dependent on the Research aspect of this project. A complete and total understanding of the content that you are adding is imperative. It cannot be achieved by random assembly of various factoids from a diverse group of sources. Such efforts create an eclectic disjointed article that is cumbersome to read and understand.

Suggest for Future Improvement

The lifting of the Reproductive Section (since deleted) cast doubt over the value of this article and its status on Wikipedia. It demands a significant amount of work. I will refrain from failing in case there is interest outside of the class project in achieving the GA standard. Reviewer: JimmyButler (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]