Talk:Neotrypaea californiensis/GA1

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

Reviewer: Monty845 (talk · contribs) 15:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am starting the GA review for this article. Monty  845  15:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * There are a few minor issues identified below ✅
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The article is very well written, and is already very close GA quality, there is one source I would like to review, placing on hold in the hopes that by the time the below suggestions are addressed the host of the source will stop timing out. Monty  845  16:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This article meets the good article criteria. Monty  845  19:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The article is very well written, and is already very close GA quality, there is one source I would like to review, placing on hold in the hopes that by the time the below suggestions are addressed the host of the source will stop timing out. Monty  845  16:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This article meets the good article criteria. Monty  845  19:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The article is very well written, and is already very close GA quality, there is one source I would like to review, placing on hold in the hopes that by the time the below suggestions are addressed the host of the source will stop timing out. Monty  845  16:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This article meets the good article criteria. Monty  845  19:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions
Taxonomy
 * "the material Dana studied was probably collected from San Francisco Bay or Monterey,[3]" I'm struggling to find where this is asserted in the source cited. (potential OR)
 * Found it, never mind. Monty  845  17:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "...and the acute and diverging tips to the eyestalks..." - I'm not sure if that is grammatically correct, should it be "of the eyestalks"?
 * Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * tuberculiform - is a highly technical term, and isn't even defined at wiktionary. It would be helpful if there was an explanation of its meaning.
 * Done. I considered glossing it, but realised that re-wording as "short, blunt" would convey the same information. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ecology and human impact
 * "Predators of N. californiensis include bottom-dwelling fish." Are there any other types of predators that could be included in this statement? Using include, and then only listing one class of predator doesn't seem right.
 * I think I might disagree with you here. The only obvious re-wording ("Bottom-dwelling fish are predators of N. californiensis.") is a rather narrower statement. Admittedly the source doesn't explicitly say there are other predators, but it would be astonishing if it were only eaten by bottom-dwelling fish. (Lobsters and crabs will eat anything!) --Stemonitis (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is already statement later in the article to the fact that Dungeness crabs prey on young shrimp, would it be fair to add the those crabs here? Monty  845  18:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good spot! Added. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should move (Metacarcinus magister) from the second mention of the crabs, to the new earlier mention, and delink the second use of the crab.
 * Indeed. Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "and by predation on the young N. californiensis by young Dungeness crabs" using by twice in a row like that seems a bit awkward, would it be possible to change the second "by" to "from". (Not a GA issue)
 * Changed the first "by" to a "through". --Stemonitis (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Images
 * File:Oyster Farming.jpg has a dead source link, I'm not sure if anything can be done about it. (Not a GA issue)
 * I've found it at the Internet Archive, and uploaded the full resolution, too. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

References Some of the above suggestions are more of a personal opinion then a clear issue with the GA criteria, feel free to let me know if you disagree with any of them. Monty 845  16:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to be able to read the 3rd reference: "Decapod Crustacea of the Californian and Oregonian Zoogeographic Provinces" unfortunately the site hosting it is timing out. If the host is still timing out in a day or two I wont let it hold up the review as deadlinks are not a GA issue.
 * Stopped timing out moments after I posted. Monty  845  16:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any more issues, appears to pass all GA criteria, promoting to GA. Monty  845  19:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)