Talk:Theodoxus fluviatilis

Distribution

Very thorough with good refs, but I think that a map would be much more informative and simply look a lot better, than listing the countries. I believe there are people here that can help make such a map, unfortunately I am not one of them. Mattximus (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no sufficient map available yet. Map on the IUCN Red list is not up to date (Iran, ...), not precise (include areas, where it does not live: Alps, Czech Republic), errorenous (Norway). But when this map will be updated according to newer methods, that are standard on the IUCN, we will probably use that map. --Snek01 (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Theodoxus fluviatilis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jan.Kamenicek (talk · contribs) 07:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

After first quick look: I think that the section Taxonomy needs some plain text. The information in bullets is brief and clear, which is good, but some prose is needed as well. Maybe someting from the taxonomic history or some alternative taxonomic views can be added. One example: the different views on the fact, whether Theodoxus fluviatilis and T. fluviatilis littoralis are distinct species or synonyms, can be described in more detail. Linnaeus called them Nerita fluviatilis and Nerita littoralis and considered them to be even different species.

OK, I expanded the info about quite known littoralis taxon into 3 plain sentences. Also Taxonomy section expanded and clarified a bit, partly because of moving of the Linnaeus' description. --Snek01 (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Typography:

• be careful about hyphens and dashes.

I think Snek01 was not aware that hyphens (rather than dashes) should be used in places like "2–3 meters depth". I had already changed some of these over to hyphens, but I had missed some others. I believe I caught all of them now? Invertzoo (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• If the ref is at the end of a sentence, it should go after the full stop, not before it.

Have these all been corrected now? I can't see any cases where this is still true, but I may be overlooking one or two... Invertzoo (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I can see that there is still some copyediting work going on, so I will wait until it is done. However, the section Distribution seems to be already copyedited, and despite this the first paragraph clearly needs rewording. There is 4 times the word "distribution" a once "distributed" in 5 sentences (twice in the first sentence), which does not read well. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I re-worked the "Distribution" prose in the first section. Hope this reads better now. Invertzoo (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Detailed review:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Very interesting article, nicely illustrated. In some aspects it is very detailed, but some sections are too listy and others need some more text too.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I think the main problem here is the section Distibution, which consist mostly of a really long list, which is not necessary in my opinion. I suggest to exclude the list into a separate article of a stand-alone list type and rewrite this section in a manner similar to Kerry slug#Distribution. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists.

   I could go ahead and create a separate list article for the list of distribution info and try to summarize the info as continuous text in the article, however I have not heard anything from User:Snek01, who is the actual nominator. Invertzoo (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

   QUESTION: How about this idea? What if I take the listy part of "Distribution" and divide it into subheadings by area, "Western Europe", "Central Europe" and so on, and then make the prose continuous within those sections. How does that sound? Invertzoo (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

   UPDATE: I decided to go ahead with that plan. Invertzoo (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

   
   Another listy part, which is practically without plain text, is the section Parasites. This section also includes brief information about predators, so maybe it should be renamed to "Parasites and predators".

   I made a few small tweaks on this section. Invertzoo (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

   I have re-worked that now completely. Invertzoo (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

   
   The section Reproductive system consists of one big and one smaller picture accompanied by two short sentences. However, the pictures should be used to illustrate what is written in the text and not to substitute the text.
   The section Taxonomy is much better, although it would also help if it was possible to have more plain text here. Maybe the information mentioned behind some of the list entries could be incorporated into the text instead. This is just a thought to consider.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Three links from the references seem dead and cannot be checked: [1], [2] and [3].

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   If possible, it would be good to expand the section Reproductive system. After a short time of searching I found some brief info at Animaldiversity.org, which also includes a reference to a paper on the topic (although I do not know, how accessible it is to you). On the other hand, the section Distribution need not contain such a detailed list of areas. In my opinion, it should be summarized in plain text and the list should be moved to a separate article. See point 1 above.

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:

   --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for valuable reviewer ideas. With Invertzoo's help, I think all suggestions are realized now. --Snek01 (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Bullets x continuous text

@Invertzoo: Thanks for the edits to the Parasites (and predators) section. However, I believe that the article needs to get rid of the vast number of bullets. I suggest to rewrite it in a manner shown below. It is just an example of style, not a text prepared to be published.

Theodoxus fluviatilis has been recorded as being host to several species of trematodes. It serves as the first intermediate host for Plagioporus skrjabini, while for Cotylurus cornutus it is the second intermediate host. Another confirmed parasite of this class is Notocotylus zduni.

This small snail is also host to several species of ciliates, especially to the ciliate Trichodina baltica. These snails are usually 100% infected with it in the mantle cavity. Another ciliate sometimes found in their mantle cavity is Scyphidia sp. Other confirmed ciliates parasiting Theodoxus fluviatilis are Protospira mazurica and Hypocomella quatuor.

--Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I will see what I can do. Since I did not do the research, this might actually be easier for User:Snek01 to do, and I could clean up the prose afterwards. Invertzoo (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE. I merged the bullets into continuous prose, thanks for the suggestion and the examples. Invertzoo (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Invertzoo and Snek01: Well done. Thanks for all the edits and for expanding the reproductive system section. Now it looks much better. May I just ask, if you could have a look at the wording of the Parasites and predators section and at least slightly decrease the occurence of the word "host" if possible, please? The last sentence of the first paragraph also starts almost exactly the same way as the following first sentence of the second paragraph (The snail is also host to... × This small snail is also host to), which also does not real well. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you also have a look at the section Western Europe? I did some editing here, but I do not know what to do with the second incomplete sentence. It also seems that the word "occur" is overused in the section Distribution and it would be good if some synonyms were sometimes used instead. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

As I think you already noticed, I just now fixed the "host" problem in the Parasites section, and also fixed up the Western Europe part of the Distribution section. Invertzoo (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Predators

I found some useful information on predators: [4]. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I will let Snek01 weigh in on this, but I don't really know whether ADW and EOL are considered to be reliable sources? Invertzoo (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Original source is Schneckli 2009 [5]. Schneckli is cited by ADW [6] and ADW is subsequently cited by EOL [7]. I am not good in German language, but I do not see in Schneckli's text, that those 4 species are predators. Other resource is Lappalainen 2001 [8], but I found there the only info, that the predator is Rutilus rutilus. Feel free to check it out. --Snek01 (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Therefore it doesn't sound as if we can really use this information. Invertzoo (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

No we cannot. I asked somebody to translate the part of the Schneckli's article dealing with the alleged predators and the result was negative. It is quite clear that the author of the ADW text, who apparently relied just on Google translation of the Schneckli's article, misinterpreted it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources

• The latin text “Nerita fluviatilis, n. 632: testa rugosa, labiis edentilis. Habitat in Europa cataractis.” is sourced by Linnaeus’ Systema Naturae. Is it this book? If so, I suggest to provide the link in the ref. b) Why is this short citation sourced by such a wide span of the pages (700–781)? Could the page be specified?

 Done

• There is a similar problem with Glöer P. (2002). If a book is cited, chapter or page number(s) should be included (i. e. the page where the information comes from, not the total number of pages), see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Books – I personally prefer the page number(s) to chapter number.

 Done

• Theodoxus fluviatilis fluviatilis is considered to be just a form (not a subspecies) of Theodoxus fluviatilis by Zettler et al. The same applies to T. f. littoralis. I think it should be mentioned.

It is already in the T. f. littoralis section, when newer 2008 Zettler's work and other newers works are cited. --Snek01 (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)  Done

• It seems that there are plenty names originally believed to be separate species and now considered to by synonyms in Fauna Europaea. Why did you choose to mention some of them and others not?

OK. I added them. --Snek01 (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)  Done

• Can you explain me the ref saying “ICZN (1955). Opinion 335.”, please?

I removed it, because I did not find it. --Snek01 (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Kantor et al. speak about variety Theodoxus fluviatilis var. subthermalis, not about subspecies Theodoxus fluviatilis subthermalis.

This means it was originally described as var. I added this detail to the separate article Theodoxus subthermalis. --Snek01 (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)  Done

• It is a common practise to flag sources that are behind a paywall with {{subscription required}}. I think it can be helpful.

 Done

--Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Conclusion

My points were dealt with and the article is now even above the standard GA level in my opinion. Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Forward to Featured article

I think, that if the following details will be resolved that article could be submitted as Featured article nominee:

• This reference should be verified and re-added to the article: "ICZN (1955). Opinion 335. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature".
• Occurrence in Ukraine could be clarified a bit (references are in Russian and Ukrainian language).
• Few more details about Prehistoric biogeography would be good.
• Photo of live egg capsules would be great.
• Image of sperm and some info from "Retzius G. (1904-1921). Biologische Untersuchungen 13." would be great. But I have no fulltext of this work, although it is a public domain work.
• There is possibility that few more records about predators exist.

--Snek01 (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to suggest a few improvements as well. I strongly believe it won't be promoted unless the following problems are dealt with:

• Each and every synonym in the taxobox needs a citation to its original description.
• The Taxonomy section needs an expansion. The species was originally described as Nerita fluviatilis. When was it recombined with Neritina? And how about Theodoxus? Who did those recombinations? Why did they?
• The "Cladogram" section could (or should) be renamed "phylogeny", and Bunje & Lindberg's study should be explained more thoroughly. For instance, what is that cladogram based on? Is it morphological data, molecular data or both? Is it a consensus tree? Is it part of a larger tree? Which groups did the study include? Are there other studies and other hypotheses?
• Each and every researcher name cited in the main text (e.g., Anistratenko, Peters and Traunspurger, and so on) should have a brief introduction as to who they are, and where they come from. See for instance what I wrote about Peter Glöer in the Prehistoric biogeography section.
• A distribution map is essential. I know it's an enormous, disjunct range, but reviewers can and will ask for a map.
• Description section needs to be reorganized. Figures are scattered, not always evenly sized and pop up in the middle of the text, pretty much out of nowhere. Some could be merged into a larger plate. I suggest doing this for the anatomical drawings (except for the radula) and the operculum related pictures. Also, the five-view shell picture could be moved into the taxobox, right below the live specimen figure. I believe this wouldn't a problem, and would likely help in reducing the crowd in the Description section.
• References ought to be completely and meticulously standardized. No extra commas, no extra breaks and spaces, same name citation format, and so on. Also, each and every link must be verified. Dead links are not allowed, External links included.
• Given it is a very well studied species, there must be some info on human use. If so, most or all of it should be included.
• Speaking of missing literature, FAs are expected to include all of the published literature regarding the subject at hand. I mean ALL of it indeed. This is particularly hard for extensively studied species such as Lobatus gigas, and this may be the case here. We should consider that we may not be able to obtain every article published on T. fluviatilis so far.
• Writing needs major improvement. It has to be top notch. People from the Writers guild could help us out, but only after most of the content is already there.

This is an initial list of problems. We can't even think of submitting this as it is. The FA review process is HARD. And I mean it. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)