Talk:Laevistrombus canarium/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 02:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've signed up for this review. I will boldly make uncontroversial copyedits as I read through the article, and bring other stuff up here. Comments in a few days. Sasata (talk) 02:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok some comments to start us off. I read up to "Behaviour", will do the rest soon. Sasata (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

✅ Modified a few words, tried to standardize the text in American english. Not my specialty, though! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * need to decide between American (color) or British English (grey)
 * I will also try to check this, although having spent half my life in the UK and half in the US I sometimes get the spellings confused myself. Invertzoo (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

✅ I agree! Modified as suggested. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "The shell of adult individuals is colored light yellowish-brown or golden to grey." would it be more accurate to say "yellowish-brown to golden to grey", implying a gradation of color, rather than an either/or?
 * "Specialists have recommended the reduction of the current exploitation rates, and recent initiatives in Thailand are attempting to ensure the reproduction of younger individuals, as well as managing the natural populations in general." "Specialists" is too vague.. what are they specialists of? The passive voice could be reworded as well.
 * They are malacologists and ecologists, such as professor Zaidi Che Cob from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Should I mention names, or just their fields of work? Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I inserted malacologists and ecologists into the text, don't know if that is sufficient? Invertzoo (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

✅ Added location, according to Cob et al. (2009). But still I don't know what language it is... I guess it is Malay. I know professor Zaidi Che Cob, perhaps he can answer this. I'll update here when I get some news! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Regional common names for this species include: siput gonggong and gong-gong." Specify what language this is, and … what does it mean?
 * OK, according to google translate, "siput" is Malay and means snail, "gonggong" is also Malay and means the sound of barking or howling (I assume this is a reference to dog, as in "dog conch", I wonder why people call it dog conch, is it because the shape of the shell is like the shape of a dog's head? I have seen no refs that explain the common name.) Invertzoo (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Tried to add in the meaning of the Malay words. Invertzoo (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Professor Zaidi C. Cob kindly answered me, and explained that it is in fact Malay, and the word gonggong refers to dog behaviour, so google translator is right, I think. He also said that the same word may have a slightly different meaning in Indonesian, though it is still related to dogs. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That will be a hard one to get... I'll see what I can do. I'll try and contact Professor Gary Rosenberg from the ANSP. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Any stories behind all those synonyms listed in the taxobox?
 * I put in an explanation of how such synonyms arise and what they are; I hope that is helpful. Invertzoo (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I only see three of the listed synonyms in the source to which it's cited; can you add a source for the rest?

Sasata (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Reference added. (I was going to use the OBIS database, but then I noticed there is a more recent review by professor Cob, already in the reflist)

✅ Removed "proportionally". By that I mean heavy if compared to other gastropod shells of the same size (which I know it's true), but then I would have no reference to support this. It's better to leave it as Poutiers (1998). Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC) ✅Corrected. It's the very same shell, actually. I overlooked this, thanks! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Strombus canarium has a proportionally heavy shell" not sure what this means… proportional to what?
 * Caption:"Different views of Strombus canarium shells" are they different shells or the same shell reversed?
 * I'm not sure what the 1742 drawing adds, considering there are color photos of the same thing just above. If the drawing was removed, the photos could be stacked vertically, made marker, and the dorsal/ventral terminology could be incorporated. Perhaps then the subsequent picture could be moved up a bit to eliminate the current block of whitespace ->ok reading on a bit I see the picture mentioned in context in the article… perhaps that last paragraph of "Shell description" could be moved up into the Taxonomy and naming section (which might be expanded with discussion of synonyms)? Something to think about.
 * OK. I moved the info and the image up into the taxonomy section as you suggested. I tried to reorganize the two color shell images, but I am not sure if that was what you had in mind? Invertzoo (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's still a whitespace issue, and I think the problem is there's one image too many. That being said, it doesn't really bother me that much :) Sasata (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * gloss definition or wikilink for reticulated
 * ✅ Invertzoo (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not too good with Latin, how about a translation of the titles of those 17th C texts?
 * I think it can be arranged. I'll see what I can do! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I hope what I did is good enough. The "Recreatio" book in reality has an enormously long full title, a whole paragraph of title (see ), but the book is almost always referred to simply as "Recreatio mentis, et occuli".  Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Got much better translations from a Latin Vicipaedia editor. Is that OK? Invertzoo (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "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)."—Almost, but testae is genitive ("possessive"). So for S. testae labro rotundato brevi retuso, spiraque laevi, try 'S. with the lip of the shell rounded, short, retuse, and a smooth spiral'. This laevi spira could (but probably doesn't?) refer to a spiral on the left side (laevum, -i 'left side'); 'smooth' is classically levis, not laevis, but more recent Latin does seem to allow laev- for lev-. Jacob (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

✅ Both are now linked! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC) ✅ I rewrote the whole paragraph. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * link morphology, phylogenetic
 * 1st sentence of Phylogeny is cumbersome and awkward, consider splitting in two.
 * I also rewrote it one more time, switching things around. I hope it is easier to understand now. Invertzoo (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * any more that might be said about the possible evolutionary relationship with S. vittatus? Is this species also Indo-Pacific? How does it differ?
 * This can be arranged, and a stub for the species could be created as well. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Stub for that species created; it has an image too. Invertzoo (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Sasata! Thank you for initiating this review. I'll be working with you in the article from now on. Best wishes, Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have tried to fix some things and am very ready to help out with improving this article in any way that I can. Many thanks to Sasata. Invertzoo (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking good! Here are my comments on the remainder of the article. After you've had a chance to address these, I'll read it through again and check references more closely, and compare with my own lit search. Sasata (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Then it extends of the foot anteriorly, further lifting and throwing of the shell forward in a so-called leaping motion." Sentence needs fixing.
 * ✅ Oh dear, I am sorry, I completely missed seeing that! Thank you! Invertzoo (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * would substrate be a good link?
 * ✅ Oh yes, absolutely, that is an important word to link, thanks again! Invertzoo (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * the point of the burrowing behaviour is not mentioned. Is it to escape from predators? To find a safe place to sleep?
 * I believe you are quite right on your second explanation (a relatively safe place to rest away from some predators), but we will try to see if we can maybe find a ref. Invertzoo (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely overlooked this! I'm almost sure Savazzi (1989) made some inferences on the purpose of burrowing. Unfortunately I'm not at the museum right now, and I'll only be able to check this on the next Tuesday. But as susan said, you are probably right on your second guess. Burrowing strombid gastropods are usually burried when they are not feeding. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't start a new section with the word "This"
 * ✅ Oh sorry, we overlooked that one. Invertzoo (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * cites are not consistently placed after punctuation
 * ✅ I've read the text throughout and consistently reorganized all the references. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "… and usually prefers major islands and continental coasts rather than the shores of small islands …" Any idea why this is? How would the snails know the difference?
 * Very good question... Maybe the coasts of small islands are more exposed, this species likes to live in sheltered conditions... Invertzoo (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but the reference won't support this! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "…shallow waters to 55 m depths." Needs convert to imperial.
 * ✅ Invertzoo (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * in case you were wondering about all the "nbsp;" I inserted, I've gotten used to inserting non-breaking spaces in short-form binomials to prevent them from line-wrapping.
 * Thank you, that's helpful, I will try to remember to do that myself. Invertzoo (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * how long does it take for the organism to reach sexual maturity/adulthood?
 * Daniel, I looked at this paper [] and tried to work out the answer to this question, but would you look at the paper too? Is about 30 months correct? Invertzoo (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's see. According to the author, the length of adult shells ranged from 31 mm to 97 mm. The average growth rate is estimated in 5,5mm per month, so adulthood could be attained anywhere from 5,6 to 17,6 months. This would give us an average of 11,6 months (close to a year). That's it, I think... Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added that in. Invertzoo (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "… typical propodium crawling movement of juvenile conchs."I don't know what this typical movement is. Is this the movement described in the behaviour section? If so, it should be explicitly called "propodium movement"
 * ✅ The author meant leaping motion, of that I'm sure. Rewrote it! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think single sentences need to be cordoned off into subsections. Could these (i.e. "Feeding habits" and "Interactions") be integrated into the text above (or better yet, expanded?)
 * ✅ That info is now integrated higher up in the ecology section, but if Daniel finds some more info on those topics, the subheadings could be reinstated and expanded. Invertzoo (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I expanded the feeding habits a little bit, but I don't believe it's enough for a subheading... Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If it's an important food staple, surely someone has published a nutritional analysis somewhere?
 * It's worth a look in case there is one, but Asian species are not as well researched as American and European species in that respect. The species is fished widely in that part of the world, but it is not a large organized commercial fishery, and the meat is not exported to other parts of the world. Invertzoo (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Answer tweaked, Invertzoo (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to find a nutritional analysis for this species. However, there is one for queen conch meat here . Probably dog conch meat would be somewhat comparable in nutritional values. Invertzoo (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think so too, but making such an inference in the article would be Original Research, wouldn't it? Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way Daniel, there is an interesting video about the dog conch as a food item in Thailand on YouTube here:. Invertzoo (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Susan! I wish we could use it... Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Lit review: Looks like most of the good stuff has been used. A few papers I found: Sasata (talk)
 * Thank you! I'll have a look at these if I can. 11:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Title: Seasonal variation in growth and survival of Strombus canarium (Linnaeus, 1758) larvae.

✅ Added info from that source! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Title: Ecological aspects and marketing of dog conch Strombus canarium, Linne 1758 at Bintan Island, Sumatra, Indonesia.
 * Author(s): Erlambang, Tanza; Siregar, Yusni Ikhwan
 * Source: Phuket Marine Biological Center Special Publication  Volume: 15   Pages: 129-131   Published: 1995

Phuket sounds like a great place to visit :) "Where are you going for you vacation? I'm going to ..."
 * Lol! That didn't occur to me at all! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * the title of the cited paper Limpalaër 2000, as well as the uncited paper Lauranceau, Noel. (2001). "A propos du complexe Strombus canarium: Laevistrombus de Nha Trang (Vietnam)" Xenophora 95:30-33 suggest a species complex? Any more information about that?
 * It does in fact, though it is written in french. I had a hard time translating that tiny little part about the ocurrence, let alone the discussion about the possible species complex! But from what I could understand, this inference is based mainly in shell morphology (the usual), and didn't get much of a repercussion. Still, if it's necessary, I could scan this article and send it to someone who is willing to translate it (for free, of course!). Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If this info isn't available in English language sources, I'm not worried about it. It's something that might come up at FAC, should you decide to develop this article further. Sasata (talk)


 * the paper that is cited by Kohn et al. (1967) says that the species has "escape responses, probably mediated by distance chemoreception" that should probably be in the article. The summarized material in the abstract looks like relevant and interesting information.
 * ✅ True indeed. I've downloaded the paper. I'll see what else I can add, and update here when I'm done! (won't take long). Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

To wrap things up, there's a few dablinks, and couple of external links that are coming back with errors. Sasata (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Disambig complete. Unfortunately I couldn't find a substitute to the dead link, not even an abstract, so I removed it. And about the orange link, though it is tagged as suspicious, it is still acessible. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we have crossed the line! Good work by you and Invertzoo, thanks for making all the improvements. I am passing the article now. Sasata (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Strombus canarium passes this review, and has been promoted to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: