Talk:Antarctic scallop/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 22:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Mine. Review to follow soon. J Milburn (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The lack of lead image is hitting me straight away. Is a crop of the image currently in the article not possible? Alternatively, is there perhaps one on File:Proboscis worm.JPG?
 * ✅ Added image that I had cropped from the one you mentioned above.


 * The lead feels a little technical right now. What is a foundation species? What are valves?
 * ✅ I have expanded and dumbed down the lead.


 * "The Antarctic scallop grows to about 7 centimetres (2.8 in) long and 7 centimetres wide with a nearly circular outline." I assume we're talking about shell here?


 * More undefined jargon- valves, umbones, auricles, growth lines, hinge line. The description is a little too complex to follow at this time.
 * ✅ I have expanded and I hope clarified the description.


 * "A non-locomotory flapping action of the valves creates a hollow in the sediment in which it lies." Jargony
 * ✅ Rewritten.


 * "In shallow waters it is usually attached by byssus threads" To what? The seabed?
 * ✅ Your guess is as good as mine.


 * "Biology" is not really a good section title- it's too broad. While the second paragraph could be moved to "Ecology", the other two could be renamed something like "Life cycle" with a little rejigging.
 * ✅ Renamed the Biology section and moved things around a bit.


 * "suspension feeders"?
 * ✅ I have clarified this.


 * "to the failure of juvenile recruitment in some years. In Terra Nova Bay in the Ross Sea, at depths between 40 metres (130 ft) and 80 metres (260 ft), the assemblage rate of overlapping individuals in scallop beds exceeds 100%." All feels a little technical.
 * ✅ I have rephrased these passages.


 * Perhaps a few images of associated species may help? Alternatively, moving the currently used image further down the article would probably fit, as it provides excellent context.
 * ✅ Moved the main image. Added a note in the text about the sponge - is such a reference to the image allowed?


 * "the scallop benefits from the protection provided by the sponge." What sort of protection?
 * ✅ Provided explanation.


 * Epifaunal and epibiont go undefined- the wikilinks are unhelpful.
 * ✅ Improved wikilinks and provided explanation.


 * "from the protection from predators provided by the hydroid" Again, what sort of protection?
 * ✅ Explanation provided.


 * The formatting on some of the references isn't ideal. Refs 2 and 5, for instance, would benefit from Template:Cite web and ref 3 is way off- just used Template:Cite book with the URL parameter. (Also, note that you're citing the chapter, so the chapter title and author are needed in addition to the editor.)
 * ✅ Done ref 2 and 3. Ref 5 looks OK to me.


 * There's some inconsistency with names- is it Smith, John or John Smith?
 * ✅ Done


 * I'd put in all the authors in footnotes- et al is probably best avoided
 * ✅ Done


 * A "Taxonomy" section may be something to consider, but your call.
 * ✅ I have made one.


 * Category:Animals described in 1902?
 * ✅ Done

Overall, it's pretty good. The main problem at this time is that some of the article isn't very accessible; there is fairly heavy use of jargon without explanations or even wikilinks. Ideally, the article should be accessible to someone who knows little about the subject. I'm certainly no expert, but I wouldn't call myself completely unacquainted with marine biology, and I was unable to follow certain parts of the article. Hopefully a little reworking will bring the article up to GA standard. J Milburn (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've only just discovered that you have taken this on. I will work through the points you raise above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Second read through
The article's looking much better already; I have little doubt that I will be happy to pass soon. Just a few more comments-
 * "valve" still goes undefined/unlinked at the first mention.
 * I have copyedited the lead a little, please check that I have not changed the meaning
 * Loving the taxonomy section, exactly what I pictured.
 * Perhaps Bivalve shell could be linked at the start of the description section using Template:See also? I note that there are not specific articles on many of these terms. It makes sense and seems well written, but it's still a little complex for the layman.
 * Per WikiProject_Birds, which the bivalve wikiproject links to, how about grouping "Locomotion", "Feeding" and "Reproduction" under a wider "Behaviour" heading? "Ecology" and "Research" work as separate parts.
 * "A white, club-shaped sponge of this species can be seen in the image from McMurdo Sound." This is worth mentioning in the caption, but not in the text, as it represents an unwarranted self-reference
 * I'm not keen on listing authors as "Smith, John and John Smith", but you seem to do that consistently, so that's ok. Do be consistent as to whether you use "&" or just another comma, though.
 * Again, I'd list all the authors, rather than just "et al".
 * I fixed the Morton source- you were citing an essay within a book, so both titles were needed; further, the Google Books was not the publisher, it was just a host.
 * I'd consider expanding the first paragraph of the lead a smidge.

Hope these are helpful. J Milburn (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have fixed most of these points. The journal references are in the form (Smith John; J. Brown) that I was originally told to use when I was instructed on formatting references, having done them wrong for a long time previously. I will be unable to respond further till Monday. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Closing
I've just had another read through, and I'm happy that this article is now ready for GA status. If you're interested in taking this article further, I'd again try to filter/explain/link some jargon, and, naturally, double-check the sources to make sure that everything that can be said is being said. Also, "remotely operated underwater vehicles armed with lights and cameras have" isn't great. In any case, the article's looking very nice now, and the work you've put it is clear. Great work! J Milburn (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)