Talk:Aliger gigas/GA2

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

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 13:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am reviewing this article and will add comments below. I have no special knowledge of the subject material and will mostly be addressing prose and MoS concerns. Some copy editing I will do directly and you are free to revert anything I do.

  • I rewrote o the opening to reduce overlinking to common words and reword slightly.
Thank you! I its way better now, in fact.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • These external links do not connect. If you have the paper copies, perhaps you should use those as references:
Ref 23 http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/umrsmas/00074977/v15n2/s4.pdf?expires=1271175167&id=56166969&titleid=10983&accname=Guest+User&checksum=186662329BBD566AF7E23C5C64C63BC4
Ref 31 http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/umrsmas/00074977/v25n3/s1.pdf?expires=1271258836&id=56189379&titleid=10983&accname=Guest+User&checksum=BA69BC43CA55CBDBB869D4B848F8226E
Well it seems like ingenta connect has many issues! I have the papers here, that is true. I've tried to add external links for verifiability purposes, of course. Do you believe it would be necessary to remove those?--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xtzou (Talk) 13:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed both broken links; Both references can be verified in ingenta connect for free. The sole problem is you can't redirect links to their page. Sad, but true! Anyway, problem solved.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    There are too many short paragraphs, giving the text a choppy look. The prose lacks fluidity.
    B. MoS compliance:
    There are too many headings leading to a cluttered look and that inhibit the flow of the prose. Too many short sections.
    There is overlinking of wikilinks e.g. in the Distribution section, only unfamiliar places that an English reader would not be expected to know should be linking.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    These references need to be fixed:
    Ref 23 http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/umrsmas/00074977/v15n2/s4.pdf?expires=1271175167&id=56166969&titleid=10983&accname=Guest+User&checksum=186662329BBD566AF7E23C5C64C63BC4
    Ref 31 http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/umrsmas/00074977/v25n3/s1.pdf?expires=1271258836&id=56189379&titleid=10983&accname=Guest+User&checksum=BA69BC43CA55CBDBB869D4B848F8226E
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    There are too many images, so that the layout looks jumbled. An effort should be made to avoid sandwiching text between images.
    Captions that are not full sentences should not end in periods.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: Pass!
  • I will put this on hold for seven days. Also, I will work with you and attempt to help in any way I can. Xtzou (Talk) 15:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To solve the picture problem completely, I see only one reasonable solution. By removing the picture [1], which details the eye and sensory tentacle, we could move picture [2], which details the whole animal, to the right. In fact, picture [3] is a crop of picture [4], so it is not really completely necessary, I believe. What do you think?--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, but I rather like that closeup of the eye stalk. It is one of the few pictures of the actual animal rather than the shell. There are a lot of shell pictures. Are they all necessary? Also, and this is probably a dumb question, but how much of the shell does the animal life in? All of it? Xtzou (Talk) 18:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, there is no such thing as a dumb question. Answering is my pleasure, specially regarding this specific topic! Well, the animal can actually retract its whole body to the inner chambers of its shell. Some gastropods can do this, and even seal the shell aperture completely using their operculum! This is not the case of E. gigas, however. So it may retract as a defense response, for example. While the animal is active (moving, feeding, and so on) the foot, snout and eyestalks will usually be exposed, while the visceral hump (which contains several internal organs and such) will always remain inside the shell, very well protected! As for the shell pictures, well... They are necessary from a taxonomic point of view. Shell morphology is very important in the identification process. Oh I was in a rush and had to leave just a while ago. I did some improvements in fluidity and reduced the number of paragraphs. Also, about the shell pictures, they are not mandatory... Is creating a gallery at the article's end an option?--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a gallery is an option, AFAIK. Actually, you have managed to neaten up the pics, so they look good now. I will read through the prose.Xtzou (Talk) 20:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • Is it possible for you to expand a little on the topics? What you have is very technical to us lay people, and it would help the article to have more text to carry the many images. Ideally, an image would not interrupt a header. And ideally, text would not be sandwiched between images.
  • For example, rather than just link to Commensals, could you have a brief explanation of the technical terms in the article? Your explanation above was very enlightening. Is there any way you could make the article convey some of the same explanatory flavor?
I have expanded several concepts and terms. Check it out when possible!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an external link in the article, which is a no no.
Where is it now? I'm sorry, I didn't noticed!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The external link is in the last section, in the last sentence, I believe. Xtzou (Talk) 21:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Fixed!Added as reference. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You had conch fish and its Latin name red linked. I think only one of them is likely to become an article.
You're correct, I agree.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Drawings of an adult and juvenile shell of Eustrombus gigas from Index Testarum Conchyliorum (1742) and Manual of Conchology (1885):" Here you show the drawings. Is there any way you could explain what the drawing show, not just for the general audience, but keeping in mind that many readers do not see images either because of handicaps or because they have disabled images in their browser.
Done. I hope it is sufficient! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish you would explain what the pictures of the shell are supposed to show under Shell description, even though I am a sighted person I cannot tell. There should be some description in the text regarding what the pictures show. Xtzou (Talk) 00:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I got it this time! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But when you say "In contrast, the juvenile..." it is not clear to me what the contrast is. Xtzou (Talk) 00:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gave it a more precise meaning. I hope my grammar is correct, I'm trying as hard as I can as a non-native speaker! Feel free to correct it, as you see fit.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you never describe the various adult shells. It doesn't matter which images are colored, but it matters what they show about the shells. Whether is is ventrical or dorsal, what are the descriminating features? Xtzou (Talk) 00:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see... Well, the paragraph below the picture gallery is not intended to be related to it whatsoever! If it is confusing that way, a paragraph reorganization can be arranged. So, in the picture pargraph, should I briefly list the distinctive characters which a reader would be able to notice in the pictures, such as "the tall spire, flared outer lip, are distinguishable in the adult specimen drawings" and so on? The overall adult shell morphology is actually described in the text preceeding the picture announcement, just after the header. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I have not a clue what to look for. And if you could link the jargon words, that would be very helpful. The problem is, how does a person like me learn about shells etc., if the articles are over my head? Xtzou (Talk) 00:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganized the paragraphs, linked some technical terms, and wrote some guidance as to what look for in each picture. Would that be satisfactory? I tried to do so in a way that I mentioned the structures, so that even a handicaped or image-deactivated browser user would be able to know what is being depicted in the end.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, you did a great job. I find it much easier to follow. It is a very informative article. Xtzou (Talk) 15:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    I made a few more minor wording changes.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Article is well sourced, with no original research.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The article remains focused on the subject while covering the relevant areas.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    NPOV
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall: A wonderful, concise article
    Pass/Fail:

Congratulations! A fine article. Xtzou (Talk) 15:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aliger_gigas/GA2&oldid=1141714245"