Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laevistrombus canarium/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 02:01, 23 January 2013 [1].

Laevistrombus canarium[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that the article is well written and covers all relevant aspects about this species. The article is also well illustrated and adequately referenced. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, I'd be interested in reviewing this, but in the past day since you've submitted it to FAC, you've made dozens of changes and add several kbs of text. Any idea when you'll be done with your revisions? Sasata (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sasata, long time no see! I know I've made a lot of changes lately. I noticed some critical problems in the article that I had to correct no matter what. But I'm finished now. You may begin the reviewing process if you feel like! It will be a pleasure working with you once more.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Sasata[edit]

Comments. I've made a list of suggestions below from a relatively quick pass through. Will let you deal with these, and come back later with a more thorough examination, a literature (comprehensiveness) check, and also check reference formatting (unless someone else gets there first). Sasata (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • link Issel & Canefri in synonymy list
Done!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All duplinks have been removed. Done!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…similar to that of other strombid snails; the animal" suggest splitting the sentence at the semicolon
Done!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "L. canarium lives on mud" should avoid starting a paragraph with an abbreviation
Indeed. Done!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Larvae of this species spend several days in the plankton" shouldn't that be "as plankton"?
You're right. They -are- plankton. Modified as suggested.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…including macaques and humans who consume the soft parts in a wide variety of dishes." needs a tweak, sound like macaques also eat them in a wide variety of dishes
Man, I laughed a lot here! Watch out for those gourmet macaques! I rephrased the sentence, is it better now?--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • don't need to link economically
Ok! Removed.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

  • "The first published depictions of the shell of Laevistrombus canarium appeared in 1684, in the earliest book that was solely about sea shells," this statement is sourced to the original document, but of course this 1684 book could not have said either of these things ("first published description", "earliest book about ...")
Added a reference to support that claim. I think it was there before, but got deleted in one of my edition frenzies...--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The synonyms that are listed in the taxobox" see WP:SELF
Fixed!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in some cases they may have been misled into thinking they had a different species because of local variations in color and form." There's no citation for this paragraph and, although undoubtedly correct, it sounds like original research
I'm contacting a specialist in the group, Mr. Gijs Kronenberg from NCB Naturalis, Leiden, in order to obtain some references. I'll be able to make things much more clearer soon. I'll update when I have news. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Updating: The section has been expanded, and several references have been included.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the subspecies guidoi is mentioned in this section, but we are never told what make it different from the nominate subspecies. Also, the parenthetical reference (Man in 't Veld & De Turck, 1998) isn't very helpful; could you possibly find the actual article and cite it in the regular fashion?
Same as above. More news soon.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Updating: A comparison and proper reference have been provided.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy

  • "When a normal adult dextral shell of this species is viewed ventrally, and with the anterior end pointing downwards," can the underlined be removed?
Removed!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from Manual of Conchology (1885)" book titles should be italicized
Done!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A zig-zag network of darker brown lines is sometimes present on the outside of the shell, but this is considered to be uncommon." why "considered to be" (can this be removed?)
It sure can. Rather odd phrasing, isn't it? Done!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a layer of protein (conchiolin) which is the outermost part of the shell surface" which->that; check throughout article for other instances; "which" generally follows a comma
  • "yellowish-brown in color" why not remove "in color"? (check throughout for other instances)
Redundant, indeed. Corrected.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The external anatomy of the soft parts of this species is very similar to that of the other members of the family" "very" is generally a useless modifier/intensifier and may often be removed without affecting the meaning; check article throughout for other instances
Fixed throughout.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "having at the tips well developed lens eyes." hyphen needed in well-developed
Corrected!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mitochondrial cytochrome-c oxidase I (COI)" no need to define abbreviations if they aren't used later
Perfectly. Removed!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution

  • formatting needs tweaking: remove line break after the colon; semicolon should be converted to period. But more generally, this section is listy and lacks flow. Any chance of a range map?
Did some tweaks. I can add more text to improve the flow, I'll see what I can do. About the map, could I draw something based on Poutiers (1998), reference number [1]? There's a very decent range map in that book, but I'm worried about copyright issues.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Invertzoo did several improvements to this section. Please, verify! Also, I drew a map myself, and added to the article as requested.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks. Sasata (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior

  • "first described by the American zoologist George Howard Parker (1864–1955)[16] in 1922." including his birth/death years is unnecessary detail
Agreed, and removed!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology

  • "though this may not be an absolute rule." may not be or is not?
Is not, the reference is much clearer in that matter. Its just that I doubted it myself, but that would be OR, so... Fixed.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from shallow waters to 55 m (180 ft) depths." needs hyphen because its adjectival
Rephrased. Is it better now?--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "… is one of the known predators of the dog conch" replace "one of the known" with "a"?
Agreed. Done!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Human uses

  • "Studies indicate that L. canarium has been overexploited and overfished recently in many areas," when is recently?
Added that info and rephrased the statement.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that a structural diagram of TBT would be better than a spacefill; who other than chemists will know, for example, that the red ball is oxygen and the gray balls are tin?
Hmm, I had not thought of that. When I looked at this 3D model, I thought "man, this is much more beautiful to look at." But the most beautiful is not always the most didactic. What you say makes sense. Changed as suggested!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The imposex phenomenon, which consists in the development of masculine sexual organs in female specimens" grammar needs fixing
Did some tweaks. Is it better now?--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but couldn't detect" shouldn't use contractions in formal prose
Fixed!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand how, if the effect of organotin compounds on this species is low, it could be used as a bioindicator for pollution. In my understanding, a chemical has to have a large effect on a species for that species to be useful in this way.
I believe the author (Cob) is referring to the impact of tin compounds in populations, not the species itself. He means that such compounds are not sterility inductors in the studied populations. The compounds affect females, causing abnormal development of a penis, but they do not bring any negative effect beyond that. They continue to reproduce normally, perpetuating local populations. Still, if the females develop a penis due to the presence of TBT, the species is a good bioindicator. Should I rephrase the text to make it clearer?--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please. Sasata (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote everything. Is it better like this? --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was bold and took the liberty of working on that section to try to make it much clearer, as it is making an important point. I think it is better now? Invertzoo (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it reads well now. Sasata (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like much has changed since I was here last! I'll be back soon with a re-review, but in the meantime, here's some suggestions from a lit search:
We are attempting to work on all of these four new leads. Invertzoo (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]
  • according to the abstract of Raven, Han (2002). "Notes on molluscs from NW Borneo. 1. Stromboidea (Gastropoda, Strombidae, Rostellariidae, Seraphidae)" Vita Malacologica 1:3–32, "Additional evidence is provided for the distinction of Laevistrombus canarium and L. turturella as separate species" suggesting that someone at some time thought they were perhaps conspecific? But neither this, nor its distinction from L. turturella is not discussed in the article.
We have added at least some discussion of this topic now. Invertzoo (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get the impression from the abstract of Dekkers, Aart M. (2008). "Revision of the family Strombidae (Gastropoda) on the supra specific level, part one" Kreukel (Amsterdam) 44 (3-4): 35–64, that L. canaries was designated the type species of a new subtribe Canariini, but this is not discussed (or mentioned) in the article.
This reference is pretty much obscure, and -very- hard to get. I couldn't find any issue online, nor could I find this in the institutional library here at the museum, which is the best library when it comes to zoology in South America... I don't know if I'll be able to include this info. In any case, I'll check The Zoological Record for any citations on Canariini. I'll also try to contact the author. I'll see what we can get.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am contacting another Dutch malacologist to see if I can get more info on the Dekkers "De Kreukel" publication. Invertzoo (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We got some more info on that paper. The Dekkers publication appears to have been faulty in several respects, not at all in line with ICZN guidelines for a new taxon of this kind, so the designation of the subtribe Canariini appears not to be valid. Perhaps it is more appropriate to just ignore the paper? Invertzoo (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me, I trust your editorial judgment; thanks for researching this. Sasata (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • any luck finding out about subspecies guido? I have the article citation, if that helps at all.
Actually, yes. Added a comparison plus reference to the article.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • there may be more distribution information not convered in the article available here: Subba Rao, N. V. (1970). "On the collection of Strombidae (Mollusca: Gastropoda) from Bay of Bengal, Arabian Sea, and western Indian Ocean with some new records. 1. Genus-Strombus" J Mar Biol Ass India 12:109–124. Sasata (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reference number 13 had a lot of info on distribution, and I put everything there! Also, I requested a copy of Subba Rao's article and it is being transferred to my institution from another library (I *love* our library here at MZUSP). I'll get my hands on it soon, and it will be included as well. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updating: I found a more recent paper by Subba Rao. It had interesting info on distribution in India, so I felt like adding it as well =)! Please verify. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Snek about including citations for the synonyms; even if these aren't discussed in the article text, you can add citations beside the synonyms in the taxobox. Many of these older sources are available online to be linked directly, which would make it an even more valuable information resource for readers.
Done!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including burrowing and a characteristic leaping form of locomotion. The former behaviour" should this be latter behaviour?
It refers to the burrowing, so I believe it is correct.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Laevistrombus canarium lives on mud and sandy bottoms" mud->muddy?
Fixed!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and several studies indicate that it may be suffering population declines due to overfishing and overexploitation.[4][5]" is this fact so controversial that it needs to be cited in the lead?
It's not... Removed.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • could you give a link to Linnaeus's prologue
Added as suggested.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link subgenus
Modified as suggested.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • give full name of Kira on first mention (to be consistent with others that are given full names); same with Biler & Petit (also, change & to "and"), Abbot, Sepkoski, Man In 'T Veld & Turck, Cob
Done.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "L. canarium comprises" don't start paragraph with abbreviation
Fixed!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a more strongly posteriorly protruding outer lip" sounds odd… does "a more strongly protruding posterior outer lip" work?
Hmm I don't think so. You see, a "posterior outer lip" would indicate a structure that doesn't exist, technically speaking. The outer lip itself protrudes to the posterior direction.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but that particular combination of words still bugs me ... I think it's the consecutive -ly words that's the problem. Can we replace "strongly" with "prominent" or "conspicuous"? Sasata (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea! =) Modified as suggested. It's mutch better like this. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link common name
Done!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Laevistrombus canarium has a heavy shell, with a rounded outline." comma necessary?
Removed.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • varices, conoidal, callus -> undefined jargon
Linked and/or clarified as required.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more frequently it is paler" paler than what? the top?
Than the top, yes. Clarified this in the text.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is yellowish-brown in L. canarium."
Modified as suggested.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and fimbriated (fringed) over the suture in this species."
Modified as suggested.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "perform the leaping form of locomotion which is also" which->that
Modified as suggested.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2006, Latiolais et al." I think "and colleagues" is more reader-friendly for a general encyclopedia article
Ok! Modified.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "unusual means of locomotion which is common" which->that
Done!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Then it extends its foot forward, lifting the shell and throwing it ahead in a motion which has been described as "leaping"." throwing->throws; which->that
Modified as suggested.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link seagrass
It is aleady linked in the ecology section, I believe.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In common with other Strombidae Laevistrombus canaries" comma after Strombidae
Done!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After internal fertilization the female of L. canarium produces" ; I think you could trim a few more mentions of the species in this section, where it is unambiguous which species is being referred to.
Modified as suggested. Please verify!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "L. canarium larvae have faster development when compared to other species" how about "L. canarium larvae develop faster compared to other species"
Good one! Modified as suggested.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Studies from 2008 indicate" Studies plural or singular? (only one source is cited)
Hmmm you're right. Fixed.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link sexual maturity
Done!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at a lower shell length" lower->shorter?
It's shorter, actually. Fixed. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Individuals are usually considered to be adult by the time the outer lip of their shell is noticeably thickened and flared; growth to adult size usually takes about a year." why "usually"? Does the source also indicate this doubt? Perhaps the second instance can simply be removed, as "takes about a year" already suggests an approximate time frame?
Removed both instances.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link staple food
Done!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not?--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "smaller individuals which have not yet reproduced." which->that
Done!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link biocidal, fouling
Done, and done!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's necessary to add citations for TBT causing gastropod imposex in the figure caption (this just duplicates nearby material that's already sourced.)
Very well, then. Removed as suggested. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference nitpicks:
  • Romae->Rome
Fixed.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#13 has a 560-page range; could you give a specific page citation?
Did just that, and also got it linked.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • publisher/location for ref#17?
Fixed.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref#23 missing issue#
You mean Subba Rao's article? It does have an issue number, but not a volume.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref#24 is available online here
Nice one! Linked.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • fix double period in ref#26 (easiest to do by removing "Inc.", per here: "Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc" or "GmbH" are not usually included.")
Removed as suggested.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "biogeorgraphy" fix
Fixed!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Journal of Applied Sciences (Asian Network for Scientific Information)" is the parenthetical part the publisher? If so, not required for a journal citation. Same with "Advance Journal of Food Science and Technology (Maxwell Scientific Organization)"
Done.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see a few more unnecessary publisher/publisher locations in the journal citations ... please remove
Now it's really done.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref #39 is missing the issue#, and since the linked title only leads to an abstract, this should be indicated in the "format=" parameter of the citation template
Fixed.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • there's some inconsistency with the use of title case or sentence case for book titles; please audit throughout
Did just that. Please verify! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova (1876) is available here, but I can't find the article cited. Also, specify the language.
Oops! My bad. The pages were wrong. Info is correct now.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Ok, I think I've exhausted my repertoire of suggestions/nitpicks, and am happy to support the article for FAC promotion now. Sasata (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Cwmhiraeth[edit]

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth

In general this seems a well-written and thorough article. A few points I noticed:- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Cwmhiraeth! Thank you for participating in this review process!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A double "from" in the second sentence.
Thank you for noticing. Fixed! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reference is needed for Lamarck's view that the snails were carnivorous.
This claim is from Parker, 1922. Added the reference to make it clearer! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This includes the crab-eating macaque" - should be "these include".
Corrected.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is excessive use of "exploitation" and "overexploitation" in the Human uses and conservation measures section.
Did some rephrasing, I hope it's better this way!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine. Looking at the reference section I can see that there is a lack of consistency as to formatting. For example
  • current refs 27 & 28 and many others are differently cited with regard to using an "&"
Removed all ampersands. Please, let me know if you see any that escaped my eagle eyes (which are myopic)!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9 & 15 - date of retrieval
Fixed both instances.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10 has pp. when it should have p.
This is referring to the total number of pages in the book and not to the specific page from which the information was taken. Is it really necessary to modify this?--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 31 & 32 have "et al" and should have full author names
Fixed all instances!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lack of consistency as to the capitalisation of the titles of journal articles
Could you show me some examples? I'm having trouble visualizing this problem!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Metamorphosis Induction of the Dog Conch Strombus canarium (Gastropoda: Strombidae) Using Cues Associated with Conch Nursery Habitat" is differently capitalised from "A molecular phylogenetic analysis of strombid gastropod morphological diversity" Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean. Thank you! I believe it's fixed now! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was told that if you have a doi number for a paper then an url is redundant
If this is not an imposition of the manual of style, I'd like to keep the links. Facilitating access to information is always a good policy. Not everyone may know that detail about the DOI after all.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I am not very good at this sort of thing myself and maybe someone else will look further at the citations when you have improved these more obvious points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now supporting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jimfbleak[edit]

Support Comments from Jim I'm a bit torn by this one, obviously a lot of work had gone into it and you've done well to find so many free sources. But I have some issues Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have written the article in AE. This species does not occur in North America, and several countries within its range (India, Sri lanka, Fiji and Australia at least) use BE. It's an inappropriate variety of English.
I went through just now trying to change over all of the US spellings to UK spellings, however I have lived in the US for almost 40 years and have forgotten some of the UK usage. Invertzoo (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did some changes too, but I'm not a native speaker. Would you be so kind as to point out more deviations from BrE in the text in case you find them? Spotting them is very hard to me! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you so much Jimfbleak! Invertzoo (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • antique books dating from the late 17th century—as opposed to new books dating from the late 17th century?
Ooops! Fixed that. Invertzoo (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sri-Lanka—why the hyphen? I've never seen this, even in that country
I changed the two mentions to Sri Lanka. Invertzoo (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This can be translated as Strombus (S.) with a shell (testae) having a retuse (retuso), short (brevi), rounded (rotundato) lip (labro), and (-que) a smooth (laevi) spire (spira).—this is ridiculous, just give the translation as you did with the publication title above it, if anyone thinks you have mistranslated, they will soon tell you (FWIW, I'm happy with your translation)
I cleaned up the translated sentence according to your suggestion. Invertzoo (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The distribution would be greatly aided by a map
Reviewer Sasata noticed the same thing, but he didn't answer my reply. Perhaps you could aid me here. Could I draw something based on Poutiers (1998), reference number [1]? There's a very decent range map in that book, but I'm worried about copyright issues.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My normal practice is to draw a freehand version of a published map, so that it's based on, but not an exact copy. These ranges are usually so approximate, you aren't losing anything in accuracy anyway. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I drew a map of the distribution myself, based on reference 1, and added to the article as requested.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your new map looks great Daniel, however, it shows only the central part of the dog conch's distribution range, which is said to reach from India and Sri Lanka to southern Japan. Is there any chance of creating a much "fuzzier" but more global map, maybe like this one for the map cowry? Or is that not allowable under the rules, because it would be a Synthesis or sort of OR, because we have no detailed info on where in India the species occurs? Invertzoo (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so myself, but I'm afraid that would be OR. Poutier's map is the only one available in the literature, and though it is certainly not absolutely precise, he took into account the depth ranges when he drew it, so it does have a scientific basis. If we tried to draw a map based on what is written, without taking into account the depth intervals where the species possibly occurs, we would be disseminating false and inaccurate information. I think the current map is the best we can do without OR!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know you have reffed the synonyms in the taxobox, but it wouldn't do any harm to repeat at end of para beginning The synonyms...
Modified as suggested.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Malay Peninsula, this species is known by the Malay common names siput gonggong and gong-gong; "siput" means snail and "gonggong" means a dog's bark or howl—unless you explain the relevance of this, it's just a random factoid.
I tried to add a little more to this to clarify, but probably am not yet making it clear: Linnaeus gave the species a Latin name meaning dog; the common English name is "dog conch"; even the Malays call it "dog snail" or just plain "dog". Obviously something about this snail or shell reminds people of a dog. (I would assume that is because the shape of the shell is very like the shape of a dog's head, but that would be OR and I can't find any ref to back that up.) Invertzoo (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, leave as is, see if any one else has an issue Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regions and countries—I can't see any countries in the list. Also, why are we given excessive detail on the Malaysian distribution, whereas elsewhere the distribution is just "India" or "Northern Australia". Again, a map would help.
I tried to re-work this section but it might still need work. Invertzoo (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A map of the distribution has been added to the article as requested.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • common dishes, such as soups, cutlets, noodles, curry, and chilli.—very vague, aren't there any named dishes that contain this mollusc?
I checked the ref for this and the recipes listed in it are, I think, suggestions for regular Indian seafood dishes but using dog conch meat instead of whatever the local most desirable seafood item would be. The ref unfortunately does not give the Indian names of the dishes, only simple English names such as "dog conch curry" and so on. I have tried to change this sentence a little, hope this is better? Invertzoo (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

:*I checked for links repeated in the main text, excluding the lead and captions, the only one is "imposex" in the final paragraph

Apologies, that was my fault; I fixed it. Invertzoo (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kohn, A. J.; Waters. V. (1966). "Escape responses of three herbivorous gastropods to the predatory gastropod Conus textile"—the "link" goes to an abstract on a sales page. I strongly disagree with these spam links, having to have a doi is bad enough. There may be others, but I haven't looked yet.
I've replaced the link. The current one doesn't look to be a salespage, or so I think. If it can't be mantained at all, please tell me and I'll remove it.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably have another read when I've seen your responses, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim! Thank you for your comments. I'll answer each one after I get back from my vacation by the end of the week. Best wishes, --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to help out a little bit too, hope I am not getting in the way. Invertzoo (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm close to supporting now, but there are still a couple of issues outstanding, and I'd like to read through again anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check[edit]

Image check - all OK (own work, PD age, PD 1923). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SandyGeorgia[edit]

nope, I popped down mid-article, for a random check, and found:

  • run-on and some sort of punctuation problem: Regions and countries where this species has been recorded include: Tanjung Adang Shoal, Merambong Shoal, Tanjung Bin, Tanjung Surat and Pasir Gogok in the Johor Straits; Records also include Pulau Tinggi, Pulau Besar and Pulau Sibu, Port Dickson and Teluk Kemang in eastern Johor and Negeri Sembilan, as well as Pulau Pangkor, Pulau Langkawi, Cape Rachado, Kilat, and western Johor Straits.
I have just now worked on this section trying to get it into a lot better shape, but Daniel, if you are back, I think you should check to see if the Malaysian locations are in a logical order, as they may possibly not be. Invertzoo (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • repetitive, first, first: ... first described by the American zoologist George Howard Parker in 1922. The animal first fixes ...
I did some rephrasing. I trust the section is less repetitive now? --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • can't sort this: In the case of L. canarium, the perception of a predator can occur either chemically or by vision, which is well-developed in strombid gastropods. Chemically or visually? What is well-developed, vision, or the perception of a predator?
I did some rephrasing. Is it clearer now? I also noticed that there was no reference to support the claim that "vision is well developed in strombid gastropods", so I added one.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Independent copyedit would be helpful here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there SandyGeorgia! Thank you for participating in this review. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who can we ask in order to get an independent copyedit I wonder? Invertzoo (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I have put in a request at the Guild of Copy Editors for someone to look over the article. Invertzoo (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Working Miniapolis (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Talk page tagged and nominator notified. Miniapolis (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of this is significant improvement (like getting rid of the WP:MOSDATE#Precise language problems), but I'm not sure about one change to the first sentence. Originally it said:
  • Laevistrombus canarium, commonly known as the dog conch and better known under the synonym Strombus canarium,
and it now says:
  • Laevistrombus canarium (commonly known as the dog conch or by its synonym, Strombus canarium)
  1. Synonym is redundant, but it's still there.
  2. Strombus canarium should be bolded and italicized, since it's a synonym.
    It's bolded now. Invertzoo (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. More importantly, I'm concerned that the edit changed the meaning; that it is better known as a specific term has been lost in the new version.
  4. I'm unsure if the parentheses are helpful.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You raise some interesting points SandyGeorgia, but I find I can't really decide what is the clearest and most accurate way to word this part of the first sentence. For what it's worth, I blue linked the word synonym, because if we retain the word, I want to make it clear that this is being used in the taxonomic sense. Invertzoo (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to revert any changes you're uncomfortable with. I'm a native-speaker, seat-of-the-pants copy editor who uses a lifetime of reading (and the MOS) to weigh what works best. I use parentheses (judiciously) to improve the flow of a sentence that may be a bit choppy from many commas. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're doing an excellent job, Miniapolis! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Miniapolis for your copyediting work on the whole article; overall you are tightening up the prose so it flows better, and making the prose clearer and easier to understand. Invertzoo (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I wasn't fishing for compliments—just wanted to remind Sandy that we're all doing our best :-). Miniapolis (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I indicated above-- a significant improvement (I only questioned one phrase, now fixed :) I've struck my nope, although it wasn't really a full oppose anyway-- just an indication that this article wasn't yet there, in spite of having support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Snek01[edit]

Support. --Snek01 (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laevistrombus canarium article related comments:

  • Full reference for Kira T. (1955). Coloured Illustrations of the Shells of Japan would be fine.
Good Idea! I have added a full reference as suggested.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need to have the image of the cone smaller than other thumb size images. I think that a thumb size is a standard.
Changed cone snail image to normal size. Invertzoo (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cladogram can be normally updated. Mainly its names should be updated to Laevistrombus canarium, Canarium maculatum, and so on. If it would be useful to keep the old cladogram for any reason, then there can be updated cladogram next to the original one. (If the cladogram is difficult, then there can be practical also to include genera sometimes.)
This is complicated... If we did, we would be altering the cladogram originally depicted by Latiolais, even if the names are synonyms... This could be considered OR, so I'd like to avoid controversy. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Modified as suggested! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following comments are for this and/or for future gastropod-related feature candidates:

  • I think, that there should be always a reference for the species authority as a standard. (There should be a ref behind the (Linnaeus, 1758) in this case.)
It has been included in the taxobox (synonyms).--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There would be very good to include also references, where is synonyms were described. For example the full reference for "Quoy & Gaimard, 1834" and so on. There is no need to have always all references for all synonyms, but it is very practical for readers.
Modified as suggested.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The size of the text of the cladogram should be normal text size.
I tried to do this, but the page view got horribly broken in all of my browsers... The layout got completely ruined! If the names in the current cladogram aren't too hard to read, I'd like to keep it as it is...--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think, that the section should be named "Taxonomy" to be simple and more compatible with other gastropod-related articles.
This could be arranged, but what about the common names? Where would this info be transferred to?--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the Human uses section? --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moreover, I think, that the whole "Phylogeny" section can be merged with the "Taxonomy" section.
I understand your concern, but the taxonomy section has been greatly expanded since the beginning of the review. Info could receive less attention if immersed in the bulk of the current text. Moreover the subjects aren't necessarily related... I'd prefer to keep things where they are, unless someone else thinks the change is necessary.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "shell description" section there should be few images of a shell as a standard. In this case I would expect at least the following three images: apertural, apical, umbilical and/or abapertural.
I've included a pictue in he taxobox that displays all requested views.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to Wikimedia Commons would be always fine.
I have added a Commons link in the external links section. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Snek01 (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes

  • Your first FAC, Daniel? If so, welcome. I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing before this is closed, perhaps one of the reviewers above can action...
Yes, my very first FAC! It's also the first for project Gastropods, I think. Thank you for the warm welcome. The review is a hard process, but a very constructive one. It's fantastic to notice how much the article has improved since the beginning.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer not to see relative/subjective terms like "recent" -- can we just give the year of the relevant studies in the text? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the lead. Do you think it's necessary to specify the year in the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the Human uses section? The year is specified later in the same paragraph, so I didn't think it was necessary =)! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can do a spotcheck, give me a day or two. Sasata (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks by Sasata (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article: "The currently accepted combination, Laevistrombus canarium, was proposed by Sepkoski (2002), who elevated Laevistrombus to genus level based on palaeontological data.[14]"
Source in tabular format: "Laveistrombus T (Mi-U) -R" which means fossils have been found from the Tertiary, upper Miocene, and its last appearance is recent (Holocene); verified.
Article: "However, when Zaidi Che Cob reviewed a number of Strombus species in 2009, examining both shell characters and anatomical data including details of the genitalia, operculum and radula, he concluded that L. turturella was simply a morphotype, and therefore a synonym of L. canaries.[6]"
All parts of sentence verified.
Article: "…, which is considerably thickened and completely devoid of marginal spikes or plicae. The body whorl is roundly swollen at the shoulder, with a few anterior spiral grooves. The shell has a medium-to-high cone-shaped spire, with at least five delicately furrowed whorls.[6]"
Source: "The shell generally solid, heavy, globose, with smooth texture." … "Last whorl (body whorl) roundly swollen at shoulder." … "Spire with at least five whorls" facts verified and adequately paraphrased (IMO).
Article: "The escape response in gastropods—the perception of stimuli (for example, the presence of a predator nearby) and a subsequent escape motion—is a frequent target of behavioural studies.[27]"
Article: "The presence of a predator can significantly alter the movement pattern of L. canarium, inducing an increase in the frequency of leaps.[27]"
Both sentences verified in source.
Article: "The dog conch can be found in littoral and sublittoral zones, from shallow water to a depth of 55 m (180 ft).[1]"
Source: "Littoral and sublittoral zones, from low tide levels to a depth of about 55 m." facts verified; structure is close, but as a single isolated sentence I think it's ok.
Article: "The siphonal canal itself is straight, short and ample; the columella is smooth, without any folds.[1]"
Source: "Siphonal canal short and broad, straightish." … "Columella and outer lip of aperture smooth." -> verified
Article: "The dog conch is also preyed upon by vertebrates. These include the crab-eating macaque, Macaca fascicularis, an opportunistic predator that scours intertidal environments.[35]"
Source: "Long-tailed macaques are a highly adaptable, omnivorous species that inhabits a wide variety of environments and opportunistically utilizes the food resources available." … "Here the intertidal habitats have become a major foraging ground for these macaques, where they feed on marine prey throughout the year." The Dog Conch is later listed in a table of food items used by the macaque -> facts verified
Article: "Metamorphosis in L. canarium can be recognised by loss of the larval velar lobes and the typical leaping motion of juvenile true conches.[19]"
Source: "Metamorphosis in S. canarium was recognized when the velar lobes were lost (shed), and juvenile conchs began to crawl with their propodium…" and "the onset of competence in S. gigas was first recognized as an ontogenetic change in locomotory behavior, which was also true for the currently studied species. Larvae shifted from swimming to a swimming and crawling mode, using the propodium and adult opercular claw to glide or leap across the substrate surface" Assuming that the "onset of competence" is equivalent to "metamorphosis", then I think this is verified. However, the article sentence needs to be tweaked, because as currently written, it could be interpreted as saying that the loss of the leaping motion is indicative of larval metamorphosis.
Hmmmm makes sense. I rephrased that part, please verify! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine now. Sasata (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article: "Dog conches are considered rare in Singapore, probably as a result of unsustainable harvesting.[39]"
Source: Fails verification: I don't see where it says explicitly, or even implies that it is rare in Singapore.
It is an online source. The information probably changed with time. I couldn't find any other ref that states the same, so I'm suppressing the whole sentence.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article: "The ability of the dog conch to survive despite imposex makes this species a suitable bioindicator of organotin pollution.[43]"
Source: "S. canarium can be a good indicator for monitoring of organotin pollution within the study area." Mostly verified, but the study's conclusion about the general applicability of the Dog Conch for biomonitoring is more restrictive ("… within the study area.")
I rephrased the claim to make it more restrict, following Cob. Is it correct now? --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! Sasata (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2013 (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/Laevistrombus_canarium/archive1&oldid=1146349292"