Talk:Chittenango ovate amber snail/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ucucha 00:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

✅ Disambiguation complete! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC) ✅ Hmm I wasn't aware of such advice at all. Well then, no major reason to keep them comes to mind. Removing Succineinae will also solve a red link. Removed!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A dab link to substrate
 * Why are Succineoidea and Succineinae included in the taxobox? These are minor ranks, and Template:Taxobox advises to omit those.
 * Kept. That is a good question for further reviews kept consistent. Ranks above family level have been discussed: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods/Archive_3. / Ranks bellow family have not been discussed this way. They are also important to understanding the classification exactly as taxobox requires (there is example for Formica rufa for this) and exactly as all other ~20.000 gastropod articles uses. --Snek01 (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are a monotypic superfamily and a subfamily that doesn't even have an article really important for understanding the classification of this species? The taxobox documentation says minor ranks can be included that are directly above the taxon that is the subject of the article—so the subfamily would be appropriate in the Novisuccinea article, but not here.
 * I know that this issue is not essential to the GA criteria, and I won't press it before passing this article. However, I am concerned that the gastropods are becoming something of a walled garden with standards that are different than those used for organism articles in general (see also some of the below comments). I think that should be avoided. Ucucha 09:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll add that I made a change in the taxobox documentation after reading Snek01's response, in order to resolve a contradiction between the text and an example given. Snek01 then reverted (reinserting the contradiction) and e-mailed me about it. Ucucha 14:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

✅ Now that I think about it, it makes sense. It sounds rather redundant... In any case, if one wants to know about how it is classified (be it bivalve, gastropod, or something else) there is always the taxobox as well... Simplified. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First sentence is rather long and complex; do you really need to say it is a mollusk and gastropod? All those are implied by "land snail".
 * Comment: this "rather long and complex" introductory sentence is used uniformly in all four Good gastropod articles as well as in 20.000 gastropod articles. It can stay "rather long and complex" until this Ucucha's proposal will be discussed. The only "land snail" is also sufficient for me, but it is thought by other wikipedian(s) that longer sentence can help to non-biologists a bit. The proposal seems to be justified, but unfortunately reducing this introductory sentence strongly goes against unification of all gastropod articles. Discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods if needed. --Snek01 (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "However, Alan Solem (1976)3 considered this snail to be merely a form of Novisuccinea ovalis"—why the "however"? It seems that all previous authors also included it in ovalis.
 * I must say I didn't wrote the body of the article, but only the introduction... So I find this whole section somewhat confusing, as are other sections. Notice that the timeline is scrambled; We go from Pilsbry (1948) to Hoagland and Davis (1987) and then back to Alan Solem (1976) and so on... I'll try to read the reference and organize everything ASAP. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ I reorganized and rewrote some of the text in order to follow a chronological order. I also added more important info from reference (4) and (6). I hope everything is clear now! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

✅ You are correct, awful mistake. Fixed! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC) ✅ Just a typo! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC) ✅ Did several corrections, I hope i didn't miss some. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC) ✅ Yes it does, redundancy removed! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC) ✅ Absolutely none. Removed! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC) ✅ Fixed! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC) ✅ No, but the relative comparisons are! Corrected.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How did molecular data confirm the species status of this species (as the lead says)? The body mentions no comparisons with ovalis.
 * "Various temperature readings were gathered during the summer of 1980-1982."—that's a rather long summer. Do you mean "summers"?
 * Be consistent in using sentence case or title case for common names.
 * "Little is currently known about this relationship. Predation by small mammals, birds, salamanders, beetles, and other invertebrates is also a potential threat, albeit at a low level."—doesn't this repeat what the previous sentences say?
 * "Oxyloma retusum Lea was described by Pilsbry in 1905 within Madison County"—what is the relevance of this?
 * "Succinea sp. B, that may be competing with Novisuccinea chittenangoensis for food and/or breeding or wintering habitat"—sentence fragment
 * "the problem of relative comparisons between the two species' abundance is problematic and confusing."—the problem is problematic?
 * "After listing, it was determined that the Tennessee/North Carolina snails were not Novisuccinea chittenangoensis,"—what are they?
 * Reference doesn't mention it, just states that they are not the same as N. chittenangoensis; I'll try and obtain said listing if I can. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "amended the State list of endangered species"—that should be a more specific link
 * Do you have any suggestions to links? Otherwise it could be removed.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, perhaps you can find the full official name of the NY list. Ucucha 18:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have added the name "List of Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern Fish & Wildlife Species of New York State" used by NYSDEC. --Snek01 (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "maintaining multiple captive populations of the species"—previous section says there are no captive populations
 * Where exactly? --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Last paragraph of the section before this. Ucucha 18:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the "current strategy", even if there are no captive populations, the strategy is still the same. It can stay the same or better wording can clarify it. --Snek01 (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If there are no captive populations, they can hardly be "maintained". Ucucha 09:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ It was a poor choice of words, it seems. I've read the reference and understood what they mean. I rewrote the statement as follows: "The current strategy for recovering Novisuccinea chittenangoensis includes buffering the species against extinction by perpetuating the extant population at Chittenango Falls at a baseline size, and new attempts in maintaining multiple captive populations." --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

✅ All have been removed! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should remove some of the "further research is necessary"-type pieces; those are appropriate to a recovery plan, but an encyclopedia article should not suggest research goals.
 * Kept. Sure, should not suggest research goals; wikipedia should normally inform about aspects of biology, that are unsufficiently studied. (Especially for gastropods, that majority of them is unsufficiently studied.) Information from the sentence "Further experiments are necessary to determine ideal conditions for maintaining a healthy captive population of Novisuccinea chittenangoensis." and has to be kept and it is completelly with wikipedia policy that "wikipedia should be presenting each point of view accurately and in context". There is no wikipedia guideline that such informations should be omitted. The information comes from Recovery Plan that is reviewed by experts as well by the public. --Snek01 (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand both of you, and your points of view, but there is a solution to keep those "suggestions" AND neutrality at the same time; The article should only state the truth. Since this information is in the official report, then we can say that "Specialists agree that further studies are necessary..." and so on. Rather than expressing an opinion, we will be informing the opinion of specialists. I think this solves the matter, no? --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ucucha 00:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there Ucucha! It's been a long time. I'll be answering to each comment ASAP. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing. --Snek01 (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you very much Ucucha, it's not easy to find someone who is willing to do a GA review on a snail article. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes, and apologies for the delay; I'm now passing the article. Ucucha 13:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)