Talk:Nephrops norvegicus/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be undertaking this review, will have comments up by the weekend. Sasata (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * if the genus is monotypic, why isn't this article named as the genus? If it's because there are several described fossil species, why isn't there a genus page?
 * N. norvegicus is the only extant species, but there are, apparently, seven exclusively fossil species (De Grave et al., 2009). Nephrops redirects here at the moment mostly as a convenience. I would write an article on the genus as a whole, but I have not been able to find any worthwhile information about the fossil taxa. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One seems to be Nephrops reedi . See . The JSTOR paper also lists Nephrops costatus, Nephrops maoensis, Nephrops aequus, and Nephrops americanus as being of uncertain generic identity; they could conceivably also be among the seven. Ucucha 19:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That was enough to get a broad outline at Nephrops. Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * link synonym authorities
 * Done, with the exception of the unknown Rowe including Joshua Brooking Rowe. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC) 12:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "with >40% silt and clay." spell out symbols
 * Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * any more info about the symbion?
 * Done. I've added a little bit of background, about how it relates to N. norvegicus. Any more specific material should probably be at ''Symbion pandora', rather than here. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * typical lifspan?
 * Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * explain "berried females"
 * Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "The tail is muscular and is frequently eaten under the name "scampi"." awkward construction (imho)
 * Changed. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Nephrops norvegicus is eaten on special occasions in Spain and Portugal" what kind on special occasions? Do they eat it on regular occasions?
 * Now altered to read "only on special occasions" – the source doesn't give any further details. If a Spanish or Portuguese speaker can provide further details from a reliable local source, I would gladly include it. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * could you link and cite Linnaeus' prologue? Should be available on Google Books (probably Biodiversity Heritage Library too)
 * Done – linked to the appropriate page through a citation. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * what does in Mari Norvegico mean?
 * I've added (my own) translation of "in the Norwegian sea". I doubt Linnaeus was using such terminology as we would today, and the fact that Holthuis could restrict it to Kattegat means that it cannot mean the Norwegian Sea. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * mention when Leach circumscribed Nephrops (and a cite/link if available)
 * Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * link variety
 * Removed the word, since "variety" is not recognised as a rank by the ICZN. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * any story about the synonyms Astacus rugosus Rafinesque, 1814 and Nephropsis cornubiensis Bate and Rowe, 1880?
 * There hasn't been much discussion of them in the literature, no. Rafinesque was, um..., idiosyncratic in his taxonomy, so it's little surprise that he published a junior synonym. You will note that Holthuis proposed to suppress almost all Rafinesque's crustacean names for this reason. Bate & Rowe is a more interesting case, but even less frequently discussed. Their figure looks to me like it might be a juvenile, but I can't find any discussion of the name beside it being a synonym of Nephrops norvegicus. I doubt that what they wrote would even count as valid publication now, because they seem so unsure of themselves ("... the name by which we provisionally intend to recognise..."). I have added a sentence saying that the two synonyms exist, but I don't think they deserve any more than a passing mention. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * page #'s (or at least a page # number range) for citations to Phillips, 2006; also for Davidson 2002
 * The Phillips ref. was an earlier citation of the same work as Bell et al.; I have combined the two. I no longer have access to Davidson (the perils of Google Books): I can try to find a paper copy if it's important, but it might take a while. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Chapman & Rice 1971 needs full page range
 * Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * page range for Chapman et al. 1975
 * Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * italics for taxa in title of Funch & Kristensen 1995
 * None needed. All the taxa are above the genus level, and so take no italics. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * dab incubation
 * Unlinked. The closest match was avian incubation, which isn't close enough. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A scan of Pubmed and the ISI Web of Knowledge shows there's a lot of room for expansion, but since this is only GA, the coverage only needs to be broad. I would like to see something about "… the most significant known pathogen of Nephrops (norvegicus) … a dinoflagellate parasite assigned to the genus Hematodinium. This parasite has been responsible for an ongoing epidemic in fished populations of N. norvegicus in Northern Europe since at least the early 1980s"
 * I always tend to forget about diseases for some reason, but at least in this instance I can console myself with the fact that that paper hadn't been published when I did most of the writing! I have added a paragraph on parasites and one on epibionts, into which the Symbion material has been subsumed. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the changes and additions; I believe the article meets the GA criteria and will promote it now. Sasata (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)