Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bivalvia/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 11:57, 9 July 2012 [1].

Bivalvia

[edit]

Bivalvia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this as a featured article because it is the main article of the newly formed WikiProject Bivalves. A thorough GA review was undertaken by Keilana and since then I have tried to make the article as comprehensive as possible. This is my first solo nomination for FA so bear with me as I am unfamiliar with the procedure. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
"Bivalves have been an important source of food for humans at least since Roman times." Perhaps the earliest written accounts are from Roman times but I suspect that bivalves were an important food source much earlier than this. Have shells been found at early archaeological sites? Aa77zz (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC) They have, and I have added this fact. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Citations for first paragraph of Brachiopods? Added. This is FN67 and all higher number references quoted by Nikkimaria in this section are now +1 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN7, 65, 81: page formatting Done
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods Done to the best of my ability.
  • Ranges should use endashes Done
  • FN15 and similar: missing author No author's name is given, as far as I can see. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN19, 32: publisher? Done
  • Be consistent in when you include locations, and when these include states I could omit locations altogether. I think those used are consistent. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN36, 52, 53, 58: page(s)? The trouble here is that these sources predate my involvement with the article and I do not have access to the page numbers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? Well, they're not reliable sources, and I doubt whether I could find reliable sources for this information. I could either remove the citations - using shellfish for bait is hardly controversial - or I could remove the statements to which they refer and the citations.
I have removed two of these and found a new citation for the third. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment I changed the sloppy table to one which is accessible and sortable. I also used the {{sort}} template, but for some reason the second column does not sort properly. Also I am not satisfied that the capitals are useful and in my opinion fail WP:SHOUT.--GoPTCN 17:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Thank you. I have removed the capital letters. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could infaunal and epifaunal as technical terms be introduced later? They seem both off-putting and unnecessary in the lead I have removed them.
  • Almost everything possible is wrong with the caption starting Systematische Geschichte .... It's in German, there is a url link that contravenes mos (especially as the Smithsonian has an article) it goes to a page that has no obvious relevance, and seems to be repeating what's on the image's page. I have removed the offending caption and its image and replaced it with another.
  • in Evolutionary History, developed has close repetitions. Done.
  • Check that all your Howevers are necessary and followed by a comma I could only find two and I removed one. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, the species generally regarded as the largest living bivalve is the giant clam Tridacna gigas, which can weigh more than 200 kilograms (441 lbs) - looks odd as it doesn't have size/length, just wieght, and next sentence has length, leaving the reader unable to compare - I think a length'd be good to add here. Done.
Link or explain byssus.
In bivalves, as is the case in other members of the phylum Mollusca, - why not "In bivalves, as with all molluscs,...."Done.
I'd do a bit of shuffling - to me, the Comparison with brachiopods section sticks out a bit where it is. I'd slot it as a subsection at the bottom of the Anatomy section, as it is about comparative anatomy. I have moved "Comparison with brachiopods" to immediately before "Evolutionary history" and have rewritten part of the latter because there was some duplication. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
that helps too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, the taxonomy sections, biodiversity and evolution are all naturally linked in subject matter, and worthwhile being adjacent to each other. At a minimum I'd move them all up to where the evolution bit is. They need a bit of a rejig. I need to read a bit and think about it.... I would like to keep the Taxonomy section near the end because otherwise it interrupts the general flow of the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To me, having both the 2010 proposed taxonomy of the Bivalvia and Biodiversity of extant bivalves seems to be somewhat duplicative. One might be best as a summary on a subpage. Maybe the second one? I agree with this suggestion and will work on it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First of all, kudos for taking on this article, it's great to see higher-level taxa presented at FAC. I'd like to review this, but am worried about one of your responses to Nikkimaria. If there are sources used here that predate your involvement, and you have not seen them, how can you be sure the article accurately represents the source text, or is adequately paraphrased from the source? Would it not be possible to change the citations to sources you have at hand? Sasata (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I first started editing the article on March 26th, it had 48,695 bytes and 30 sources, one used multiple times. Now it has 116,686 bytes and 123 sources. I think it would be a mammoth task to check all the sources that pre-dated my involvement. If it was a requirement that the editor putting an article forward needed to have checked every fact personally, it would be almost impossible for an article to attain FA unless it had been written from scratch. And what about a collaboration where several editors have access to different sources? When I see some well-referenced fact added by another editor, I am normally prepared to think that they are acting in good faith. Some of the information I will be able to verify but much of it I will not. I will see what I can do. I could ask someone who has access to a Barnes "Invertebrate Zoology" to check that multiple source, but no, that wouldn't do, because I wouldn't have seen the material myself ;-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been through all the online sources that predated my involvement with the article and replaced the only one with which I was unhappy. I look forward to your full review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just started taking a look through, and it seems that the refs still need some cleaning up. Could you work on the following:
  • consistently use either title case or sentence case for journal article and book titles Is lower case for journal articles and upper case for books OK?
  • ensure that all available biliographic information is given in the citation for web sites. For example, current reference #4 does not have the author(s) listed, even though this is available on the linked page. Ref#15 is missing an author. etc. Done.
  • it is redundant to give both a doi, and link to the same page that the doi leads to (see e.g. ref #6). In general, only include url links if the article is not behind a paywall, or otherwise include the (subscription required) template. Do you want the urls removed when the article has a doi and is freely available?
  • If they both lead to the same place, it's still redundant. In these instances though, you might want to use the handy {{open access}} template to let the reader know the source is free. Sasata (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Done.[reply]
  • not necessary to include the total # of pages in a book (nor the fact that it has an attached CD), ref#7 Done.
  • please include a direct link to Linnaeus' protolog (it's available at Biodiversity Heritage Library and other places) Done.
  • no page#'s for ref#14? Done.
  • the double periods in the refs can be solved by removing "Inc.", "Co.". "Ltd.", and other similar abbreviations from publisher names. (This is recommended by the MoS, although I don't remember exactly where) Done.
  • page ranges require endashes, not hyphens Done, I think.
  • ref #19 should be formatted as cite journal with a link to the web page Done.
  • ref #21 missing authors and pub. date (find this info by clicking back to the homepage) Done.
  • cleanup (i.e. remove) empty, unused parameters from citation templates Done.
  • this list is not exhaustive, just examples from the first couple dozen refs. Please check the rest with a fine tooth comb. I'll be back later with hopefully more substantive commentary about the content :) Sasata (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC) I have worked through all the journal references applying the above suggestions. Books next! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I am aware, I have dealt with all the reference matters listed above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry to be a pain about the reference formatting, but if you master this now, your future FACs (I hope there will be many!) will be much smoother. Again, this list is not comprehensive:
  • there's still a few "Inc."s and "Co."s causing a double period All removed, I think.
  • many page ranges still use hyphens instead of the proper endashes All removed, I think.
  • the subscription needed tag is only required if a link is directing the user to a paywalled site. If only a DOI or JSTOR link is given, this template is not needed. I have now removed the unnecessary tags.
  • ensure all of the journal titles are not abbreviated (I saw Amer. Zool., there may be more) Done.
  • the open access template needn't be used if the url leads to a PDF download (the reader can see the PDF icon and knows the article is free) All removed.
  • if there's a choice between linking to an open access article (e.g. Tëmkin 2010), or linking to the free downloadable PDF, I think the former should be preferred (that way the reader gets to access the information on a web page, but has the option of downloading the PDF if they so desire) Done.
  • it seems the DOI is busted for Taylor et al. 2007 & 2011 (refs #114, 118). Missing an issue # too. #114 is OK, issue added. For #118 I have reported the error so I hoped it would soon be sorted. Otherwise, what should I do about a busted doi?
I have now replaced the faulty doi with the url (now #120). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • missing info in Franc 1960 (ref #124). Is this a book? Who is the publisher, what are the page #'s, etc. It's a book but I don't understand the url I found well enough to be sure I have filled in the template correctly.
  • why is only one author listed before et al. in ref #127 (contrary to multiple authors listed in other refs?) There are about 50 of them, do you want them all?
  • I have added the other 49 :)
  • locations for books are not given consistently All removed, I think.
  • author and publisher missing for ref #50 (you have to go back to the homepage and navigate a bit to find it) Done.
  • It's getting late here so I will deal with Cryptic C62's comments tomorrow. Its a pity I chose such a large article for my first attempt at FAC! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the table in "Diversity of extant bivalves", shouldn't the title of the first column be "Name" or "Taxon"? Why are some taxa in bold? Why is Anomalodesmata in parentheses?
I have reorganised and I think improved the table. It was not previously in alphabetical order. Anomalodesmata used to be considered a subclass but has been demoted and its orders are now included within Heterodonta. I have removed it. Early on in this FAC, GoP improved the table and made it sortable. I'm not sure that having it sortable is a good thing as it does not retain the orders in the correct subclass. I could, I suppose, resolve that by including the name of the subclass on every line. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a bit odd to use a 1971 PhD thesis to cite the fact about the southern black bream eating bivalves. Couldn't this fact be sourced to a more recent, more accessible publication? I have given a different example of a predatory fish species, citing a more recent source.
  • the "Defensive secretions" subsection isn't long enough to warrant a new heading, and the first and third sentence repeat information ("produce a noxious secretion when stressed"; "When … attacked … secretes a toxic substance") Done.
  • "Here they are largely free from bottom-dwelling predators such as starfish and crabs but require more labour." More labour for the juveniles, or more labour to harvest them? Done.
  • "Ian McNeil, writing in 1990, stated that the button "... was originally used more as an ornament than as a fastening, the earliest known being found at Mohenjo-daro in the Indus Valley. It is made of a curved shell and is about 5,000 years old." Typically, specific quotes and in-text attribution are used when for whatever reason it is important for the reader to know who said it, and exactly how it was said; I don't think that need applies here. Done
  • In the symbolism subsection, how about mentioning the use of bivalve shells in funeral and burial rites? This is known from early American civilization (e.g., Archaic shell mounds of Kentucky's Green River area); prehistoric China and India, and Mesoamerica (there's probably more, I'm just going off a quick Google Books search)
I'm not sure about this and couldn't find much when I searched. I did, however, find an interesting article on the traditional use of shells by the Winnebago Tribe and I have added that information to the "Other uses" section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this source, bivalve shell structure can be divided into three main types: the oyster (latticed sculpture), and scallop (radial sculpture), and the clam (concentric structure). Seems like good overview information that might perhaps be suitable for inclusion?
Its not the structure but the sculptured decoration. I have added this information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "One of the most widely accepted systems was that put forward by Norman D. Newell in his Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology" seems to imply that this book is solely Newell's creation, but our article on the topic indicates that it's a multi-author, multi-volume, decades-long work, so the wording needs to be tweaked. Done
  • I've finish copyediting the article, and think it broadly meets the FAC criteria 1a,d,e; 2; 3; and 4. I'm not in a position to judge 1b (comprehensiveness), though I find it reassuring that Invertzoo was involved in helping to write the article. I'm still concerned about the lack of page numbers for many book sources (criteria 1c–"well-researched"). It was precisely this same reason that the brain FAC was not promoted. To quote the spot-checker Fifelfoo from that FAC, "400 page passim. citations aren't appropriate, and indicate sloppy verification." I don't see why this article should be held to a lower standard. For this reason, I can't support this yet, sorry. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found alternative sources for all except one of the books with unknown page numbers. The exception is Marcus Huber's Compendium of Bivalves, now #50. I am making efforts to find the page number for that. Does anyone have a copy or access to one? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Based on the recent improvements, I think I can get behind this. One final nit: I can't find evidence for the existence of current ref #79 (Fishelson 1979); the only mentions on the net appears to be from mirrors of this page. Fishelson doesn't even mention this volume on his academic web page, unless it's actually supposed to be Zoology. British Encyclopedia for Youth (In Hebrew). Since the fact it's supporting is double cited (and the other source clearly supports the article text), perhaps you might consider removing it as extraneous? Otherwise, great effort on an important high-level taxon article! Sasata (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the Fishelson source. Thank you for your help in improving this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead comments. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The gills have been modified into ctenidia" This phrasing suggests that humans made the modification. Perhaps "have evolved" would be an appropriate replacement? Done.
  • "Most bivalves bury themselves in sediment on the seabed." Why? Is this to hide from predators, or to search for food? Or just for fun? Done.
  • "The shell of a bivalve is composed of calcium carbonate and consists of two rounded halves called valves, which in most species are more or less mirror images of each other." Most species, meaning not all, and "more or less", meaning not really. The second clause doesn't seem to serve any actual purpose, and may be more misleading than saying nothing. Rewritten.
  • From "The adult maximum shell size..." onwards, the second paragraph of the lead presents detailed overly trivia about size. It should instead give the reader a broad understanding of size, as the purpose of the lead is to summarize key ideas, not to repeat factoids. Also, the average shell size would be much more informative than the maximum ever recorded. Also, the units are all over the place here. I see mm converted to inches, meters converted to decimal feet, meters, converted to feet+inches... it's just a barrage of data. Removed this section. The information is now included in the "Diversity" section with the units more consistent.
    Definitely better, but not quite there yet. "the majority of species are at the lower end of this range" is rather vague. Considering how much variation there is between the big guys and the little guys, this phrasing leaves the reader guessing what "normal" is. A possible workaround would be to give the size of one of the most common species.
I have reworded it.
  • "Bivalves have been a traditional part of the diet of maritime nations over the years." Lots of problems here. "over the years" is a useless filler phrase, as it gives no indication of the actual time frame. "the diet of maritime nations" wrongly implies that entire nations consume bivalves (do people in Nebraska even know what clams look like?), whereas "coastal communities" or something similar would be more accurate. Done.
  • "... new culture techniques over the last few decades. There is now..." Which decades? When is "now"? See WP:ASOF. Time-related language needs to be more precise than this. I have rewritten this part.
  • "Bivalves have also been used in the biocontrol of pollution, in making jewellery, sea silk and buttons and are the source of pearls and mother-of-pearl." Too many unrelated ideas crammed into one sentence. Done.
  • These suggestions have now been attended to. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to the lead: am I correct in seeing that the 2010 proposed taxonomy of the Bivalvia section is a summary of a single journal article, without any indication as to whether or not the results have been accepted as consensus? This is a blatant misuse of a top-level section, and could even be considered POV-pushing. Something needs to be done about this, and the current solution of moving the content to a daughter article is not adequate. That article currently does not meet the WP:Notability standards, and should be deleted unless reliable third-party sources can be added to back it up. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC) I have renamed this section and made it lower in level. WoRMS, the World Register of Marine Species, has adopted this taxonomy and I have added an extra reference. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. The problem now is that each of the subclass subsections (hee!) are of the same level as the 2010 taxonomy section. Actually, I'm not even sure that the subclasses should be subsections. It clutters up the TOC and floods the screen with [edit] buttons. Thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have rearranged it and I think it is better now.

Comment There are several refs that are online dictionary links, but ref 8 is not formatted like the rest. PumpkinSky talk 12:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Well spotted! #8 is formatted the same as the others now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support now PumpkinSky talk 21:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't think a 1925 source for the evolutionary emergence of bivalvia is appropriate, and the article should explicitly state when bivalvia first emerged. At the moment, all the article tells me is that they appeared later than the Early Cambrian. (However, there is a cited note in the infobox that suggests this might not be correct). Evolutionary emergence (or dominance) is pretty significant and (once adequately sourced) can be mentioned in the lede. In many other respects the article is excellent. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten this section using new sources. The 1925 book gave rather more detailed palaeological information but I agree that views may have moved on since that date. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I still think there should be a sentence in the lede stating when the bivalvia first evolved. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you for your support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bivalvia/archive1&oldid=1208535985"