Talk:Semicassis granulata/Archive 1

ARCHIVE PAGE 1: August 2009 to January 2010

Taxobox
To do: Find out the taxo info. Example box:

Ive added the taxobox Kevmin 08:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Most excellent and many thanks! JordeeBec 23:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

pronunciation
Is the first pronunciation correct? I added the second, which is what it is per the OED. kwami 05:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A.P. Biology Project
Hello to all editors interested in the Scotch Bonnet article! A group of high-schoolers, including me, have decided to "adopt" this topic and drive it up to a GA status. Check out what we're doing at A.P. Biology 2009. Feel free to leave comments and thoughts here or on our talk page. Joshyhmarks (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Species Question
I'm confused. is the scientific name of the Scotch bonnet Phalium granulatum or Semicassis granulata? This here could distinguish between this sunspecies and the Panamic bonnet. Some of our references say Semicassis granulata, others say Phalium granulatum. Joshyhmarks (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You guys should include stuff that eats it...are there any laws that protect it, 'cause it seems so rare... what do they eat?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool pic, but what's up with all the unused references?--76.0.143.27 (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit Summary
AP team - please complete the edit summary when making changes to the article or leaving comments on the talk page - this will allow others to monitor the progress and more effectively assist where necessary! In fact, as a group project, it is essential so that your team may monitor each others contributions. See me in class if you need assistance with this task. JimmyButler (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

My First Edit, Kinda
Well after today’s thorough lashing about dumping alot of material on the article at one time, I can only say that I guess I deserved that. My attempt at humor may be a little lame, and maybe humor should be lacking this "late in the game." Well on to my edit, I tried to give a general outline of many important aspects of the scotch bonnet shell and the snail that lives inside of it: behavior, description, etc... These all can be improved upon by going into more detail especially about the animal. The animal is a mollusk in general, but after doing some research and finding that 23% of all animals in the ocean are classified as Mollusk, I bet there’s a way we can deduce a better name or description for the animal.

For my group I feel we need more information of the family Cassidae Even the article on Wikipedia is poorly constructed for such a large group of shells. Maybe we are just living in a generation that has completely lost interest in the science behind the "pretty" shell they're picking up.

Also, let’s focus on the animal and attempt to make this article on that corroborates with the mollusk article. Reddevil1421 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC).


 * Why don't people just care a little?


 * Anyway, I would put captions along with the pictures you put in the article. Look at most other articles and they will have information attached to their images.  LIke in the one with the orange you could talk about its size.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing ctd
Andrew, I'm working on your suggestion about the family information. However, you still need to do you in text citation according to that little warning banner. I'm not sure how to do the coding but there is a link. I cannot do it for you because I don't know what article you used. I am editing some of the work that you have already put up and adding a few things to it at a time. --Kaker42 (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Cite
I find this article lacking in in-line citations.

Sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, when quoting someone, when adding material to the biography of a living person, and when uploading an image. (from WP:CITE)

The more time passes, the more difficult it will be to add them. --Ettrig (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see my peer review of the article for tips on how to fix this problem. Finetooth (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to cite but am having trouble with the refname= and need some help. anybody? Joshyhmarks (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to give you a hand. What do you need help with? NW ( Talk ) 23:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Connecting information in the text to the "correct" source becomes profoundly more difficult if the link is not made at the time of data entry. Why have you created a bibliography of sorts without connecting the sources at the bottom to the information in the article? Do you have a clue which references at the bottom were used in the paper and more importantly - what specific information they provided?! Failure to accurately provide inline citations will make GA impossible. On written papers in AP Biology - it is an automatic fail not to cite the information in the paper. Time is ticking!!!!!!!!!--JimmyButler (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have fixed all of the references that we have used in the article so that they have appeared in a list, and not as seperate sources. If you guys use any sources that are new, add a "ref name=..." before. Hopefully this helps toward GA Joshyhmarks (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review Citation Issue
Finetooth, can you give us a cite example. This is a paragraph from the "Origin of name" section in our article. The reference that corresponds with the information below is the first reference by Sarah Friday. Thanks!

"The name "Scotch bonnet" was given to the shell because of its vague resemblance to a traditional tartan hat, which used to be commonly worn in Scotland. The shell gets its name from the pattern of squares and spiral bands resembling Scottish plaids and a shape that is similar to a cap worn by Scottish peasants. This shell represents the abundance of Scottish settlers that founded North Carolina. In 1965 to honor these settlers, the state of North Carolina named the scotch bonnet its official state shell. With this designation, North Carolina became the first state to have a state shell." --Reddevil1421 (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Request addition of image to article
We have uploaded images onto the article "to improve its quality." Therefore, we would like to delete the information box at the top of the talk page. If anyone is against please comment here. --Kaker42 (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, you are good there. I would stagger the images a bit so they aren't all on the right side of the page. --Yohmom (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Copy/edit One section.
I picked a section at random: A multitude of suggestions in an effort to guide you on concerns with writing style. There is an over-use of baggage words that contribute nothing to clarification; yet under use of relevant connectors and descriptions that would prevent confusion. The two sources within the paragraph align well with the information - however, several factual statements go un-sourced. Hopefully you can compare the original with my embedded suggestions for changes. --JimmyButler (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The typical habitat for these animals are tropical areas [waters], but [however] [but is a weak word] can be [they are][avoid weak statements] found from the Coast of North Carolina all the way [excess verbiage] to Brazil Source. Scotch bonnets live on shelly sand in moderately shallow water.[Need a source] Shelly sand refers to the plethora [Vocabulary Over Kill] [abundance] of shell fragments embedded [sounds like they are impaled] [mixed] in the sand; and it is [excess verbiage] typically where ocean currents are rough [Currents are strong] Perhaps where strong currents create rough water? . The Atlantic, especially off the coast of North Carolina, is found to have [excess verbiage] [has] very strong currents, hence the name Graveyard of the Atlantic [irrelevant trivia - as it relates to shells]. Divers and local fisherman frequently find the Scotch bonnets [living] [to clarify the empty shell from the actual animal] approximately 50 to 150 feet (15 to 46 m) offshore.Source They are commonly associated with the offshore Atlantic calico scallop beds. [Why????][Need a source] The scotch bonnets thrive in shipwrecks. [Why????][Need a source] The shells are rarely found onshore. With the occasional storm the shells are brushed onshore. [The abandoned shells are rarely found on the beach; however, occasional storms wash the shells onshore.] [to clarify the empty shell from the actual animal][Need a source]

Capitalization
Scotch Bonnet, Scotch bonnet, scotch bonnet. Which form of capitalization is correct? --Yohmom (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Croatan students

There has not been a single edit by any of you since the GA nomination; despite an extensive and thorough review. This is most disappointing and frankly somewhat embarrassing. Upon receiving a GA response; it might be appropriate to involve yourselves in the process of addressing the specific concerns in a timely manner. --JimmyButler (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Although there have now been a few more edits, the great majority of the points raised by reviewers have not been addressed or responded to in any way. For a successful article and a successful collaboration, see Bog turtle and its talk page. Invertzoo (talk)

Proposal to close In view of the failure to address the concerns, I think that this article should be failed. Normally I would do this unilaterally, but since at least three other editors have commented on this page, I'll hold off for a day or two to see if there are any other views  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The concerns that were addressed in the GA Review have been addressed by myself and my classmates. I am attempting to make an extra effort and fix any further concerns by yourself. As being the one who has written most of the article, I feel like a closure of this article would only be detrimental to the entire process, and only lengthen the process of making this article GA. The only thing that hasn't been has been addressed by myself and my classmates is anything concerning Taxonomy. This is something I have little understanding of. I will address this as soon as I know what to do. Reddevil1421 (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the article should be failed in this first attempt to reach GA status. There was not a sufficient, timely and respectful response to all of the points raised, despite an offer from the Project Gastropod editors to act as expert advisors. The article still needs lots of work, not simply in the Taxonomy section. After this attempt is closed, the article will not stagnate, it will be brought up to GA status by the Project Gastropod editors, who have been deliberately holding off on their edits, in order for the students to have a fair chance to do it themselves. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I thank you for the time allowed for me and my fellow classmates to attempt a GA Review. But if I may humbly request that you continue holding off the Project Gastropod Editors until January 8th. Upon which if your request haven't been corrected, you may fail the article as so and proceed on with your edits. I only ask this as this once collaborative effort, has turned more into a individual effort, and I find myself hard-pressed and struggling during the holiday season to continue to dedicate hours upon hours online. Once, school has is back in session I will have the opportunity to talk with my classmates and make our final attempt. Happy Holidays Reddevil1421 (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Disputed
Example of serious error: "The Scotch bonnet is an asexual organism." Also using reference for this article is completely useless and very problematic, for example for Excretory system. There is nothing about Semicassis granulata in the source so it is not possible to combine it with Semicassis granulata. Avoid using such general sources and use only species specific sources rather. And use species specific images also. It is better to provide less but correct information than many unverifiable theories from summaries focused on kids. --Snek01 (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed the "asexual organism" statement. We do realize we made a mistake, and it has been changed. Joshyhmarks (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Source "The Construction of a Snails' Body" contains no information about Semicassis granulata. Do not use this source at all for this article. This is not reliable source Reliable sources: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article". A small example how the error happen: "The Scotch bonnet is an hermaphroditic organism. It is actually both male and female. This means it possess both genital organs in a genital apparatus.". It is used with claiming, that "The Construction of a Snails' Body" was used as a source, but such information is not in the source!!! In reality Semicassis granulata have separate sexes: males and females! If all other sources are used in the same way and randomly using some fact about completely different species, then every such source is unreliable. --Snek01 (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alignment of sources is the most critical component of this Research Project. Even one mis-alignment places them all in question. If I'm forced to grade this project; I will check each and everyone. The grade will plummet if I find you have misrepresented ANY of the information. Something ALL of you may want to check.--JimmyButler (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "randomly using some fact about completely different species"... is this the case? Clarification of prose is easily corrected; misrepresentation of the information is "illegal". This would require correction; the credibility of our entire project rest on this premise.--JimmyButler (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the writers made the assumption that there is basically only one kind of snail, therefore anything that is said about snail anatomy anywhere must also apply to Semicassis granulata. This is a very rudimentary mistake. Invertzoo (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As evident by sections focusing on anatomy and physiology. I've reviewed the "Reproduction Section". As harsh as this sounds; it might be best to blank this section until the group can provide an accurate representation of what takes place. It currently consist of random statements gleaned from the Invertebrate Zoology text.--Yohmom (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries please!
I wanted to repeat our request, as previously mentioned, that users always fill in the edit summary slot when they do an edit before they hit save. As it currently stands there is no edit summary in a very large number of the edits. This is a nuisance because it takes work and time to find out what was actually done by whom and when. Invertzoo (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Question List

 * Does this species coil both left and right. I was thinking direction of coil was species specific, much like the Busycon carica vs busycon contrarium. Knobbed Whelk vs. Lightning Whelk. Any way to check on that?--Yohmom (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Does the gamete travel to the gonads? I was thinking the gamete (I think you are referring to sperm) are produced in the gonads - thus would be travel away from them through the tube.
 * When discussing tentacles the statement refers to tactile; but then the follow-up is about chemoreception.... I'm not sure if that is the same since tactile is touch.
 * creeping along the ocean floor on a bed of slime......... very cool sorta like the Alien Movies!
 * least 30 centimetres (12 in) away... Phrasing is annoying. So if it is 20 cm they can't smell it? What is the maximum range, which would be of greater interest. Also smell is not mentioned in sensory; yet it is stated to be the way they find food. Are you using chemioreception interchangeably with smell?
 * On occasion, a beachcomber may stumble across a common food source of the snail, a key-hole urchin, with a neat 0.16 inches (0.41 cm) hole in its shell. Okay... I'm going to stop on this one... I was trying to help - not be cynical or mean spirited ..... good luck or get busy.... I know I don't plan to be anywhere around the house when JimmyB clamps down on this one. --Yohmom (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A problem with two of the images
The two images that show live animals, including the one in the taxobox are in fact from Italy and therefore they are not this species. They are the related species Semicassis undulata. As suggested some time ago by User:Snek01, a stub should be created for this other species and the differences between the two should be discussed in this article. Invertzoo (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism
One sentence in the intro is almost identical to sentence in the source cited. This is not acceptable.

1. The Scotch bonnet's body also can be retraced to the common mollusc body plan

The source says:

2. The snail's body also can be retraced to the common mollusc body plan

Invertzoo (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Distribution map
According to the red shading shown on the distribution map, these offshore sea snails also live several hundred miles inland from all the coasts. Not acceptable. Invertzoo (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The red region does not go "several hundred miles inland," I don't know how you could even determine that. I think the distribution map is perfectly in line with the wording of the article: "North Carolina marks the most northern extent of their range, the population extending south through the West Indies to Brazil. This includes the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea.[13][17]."  It's just the formatting of the map that leaves some semi-shaded red region on the land (that was kind of a worthless complaint...).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This certainly may seem a pointless complaint to you, but you must remember this is not a private term paper, this is a science article which is available for anyone to consult world-wide. Scientific facts have to be presented in a precise way. The technique used for producing the red area in the distribution map is not nearly precise enough. It is a red line that used to run along the coast, but has now been blurred. As a result of that blurring, the red area now overlaps the land by at least 200 miles in the Gulf of Mexico and overlaps into the Pacific Ocean at Panama. Take a look at a larger version of this map and you will see what I mean. No science publication would ever consider this map to be acceptable as a suitable depiction of the information is it supposed to convey. Sorry, but those are the breaks. Invertzoo (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Invertzoo; this is a legitimate concern for his exact reasons. Looks like the red area was simply using a "spray" tool in paint or photoshop. Should be a quick fix. No need for anyone to get to snarky or defensive.--Yohmom (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay Invertzoo, but again, how are you coming up with a measurement?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop making this a bigger deal than it is. Invertzoo's point is that the area shaded red doesn't need to extend onto land or the Pacific ocean. So stop wasting your time nitpicking his comment and actually do something productive. Like fix the map. --Yohmom (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a private term paper. Neither is it a scientific article. It is an encyclopedic article in being. There are two versions of the distribution article. The first one is definitely misleading. I find the second one to be OK. I am now relying on Invertzoo for the facts. The spraying type read marking clearly signals that the intended precision is very low. My interpretation of such a marking is that this snail can be found with approximately the same probability on all Atlantic coasts in the area. Again, the actual information to be presented has very low precision. The map clearly signals this. If the coastline is traced more carefully with more distinct lines, there will be a higher risk of overinterpretation. --Ettrig (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The traditional way to show this kind of distribution is with a shaded area (using hatching or stipple) that covers the whole range, such as this one: Invertzoo (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay...I had enough trouble getting a bog turtle map, I am not the one who will be fixing this one.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Anatomy
This large section and its multiple subsections are still mostly really in extremely horrible shape. As well as some errors of grammar, punctuation and formatting, there are countless serious factual errors. For example, the tentacles are not retractable, this is obviously taken from a description of a land snail! Ospharadium and osphardium are both careless incorrect spellings. I could go on and on. As suggested by User:Yohmon, a lot of blanking might have to be done. Incorrect and misleading information is significantly worse than no information at all! This is an encyclopedia after all, not someone's private note book. Invertzoo (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Assistance
Andrew, Kayla, and Josh, I just went through and organized your citations in ascending order according to their number. That was something that I was told to do as a part of making FA. Oh yeah, you are gonna get FA, look at the discussion at the bottom of the project talk page (btw, you guys need help with just about anything, I will gladly help you as best I can).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Dom, you're incredible thanks! Reddevil1421 (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, thank you.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Help!
This is really a note for my group members, specifically Andrew. As I was addressing the Question List presented by Yohmom I found that one of the issues she addressed has the wrong citation. This reference does not say anything about the snail smelling and how far away it can smell its prey. I tried looking for the reference you used, but I can't find it. This needs to be fixed by Monday for Mr. Butler's review. Also since I don't have the book that Mr. Butler provided you, can you please address some of the Invertzoo issues about the Anatomy. I will continue to patch up and edit the rest of the article and look for any other wrong citations. --Kaker42 (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Scotch bonnets live buried in the sand by day, coming out at night to feed. The snail locates prey by sense of smell from a distance of at least 30 cm away. (the Sarah Friday reference)
 * Well, it doesn't sound like I can help with that, but as I said above, I can try to help with just about anything esle.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I need you to also look up this issue: The source sited is that book, which I don't have to check its accuracy. --Kaker42 (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When discussing tentacles the statement refers to tactile; but then the follow-up is about chemoreception.... I'm not sure if that is the same since tactile is touch.
 * From the wording of those several sentences, it sounds like the tentacles sense by touch, have eyes that detect light, and have chemoreceptors, but I can't be sure. If I were you (a person working on the article without access to the book that the information has come from) I would just sit tight and wait for Andrew to come back to wikipedia, because as Mr. Butler said, the last thing we want to do is provide false information.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture
The picture in the taxbox says that the snail is in Italy. I thought these guys lived in North and South American waters! What is up with this?--Yohmom (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think they should take this picture (along with the very similar one later in the article) out altogethor. It looks like if they do this they will still have plenty of relevant and diverse images.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not even sure who uploaded those pictures or where they came from because the ones uploaded by Reddevil1421 where taken off. I don't know exactly what I should do, so any suggestions? --Kaker42 (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Definately, since they contradict the info in your article, put the one with the black background in the taxobox. I also recomend taking the picture of the hermit crab out, since you mention that it inhabits the scotch bonnet shell (in the caption and section on after death) yet it isn't in a scotch bonnet shell.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like the one with the black background. In fact, I hate, hate HATE it. Why is it distorted and what is that distracting, ugly writing on the bottom of the picture? I found a Scotch Bonnet shell in our house (fo' realz!) and can take a picture of it if you would like. I promise it won't be placed next to an orange! I'm hoping to get something along these lines:.
 * On another note, asking people on Flickr to release the rights to their pictures is always a possibility. Almost all of my images from the Banker horse article were obtained through that method. --Yohmom (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions.If you don't mind taking a picture of the shell you have, then I think it would add to the article since we have to edit out some of the already existing pictures. Speaking of pictures, does anyone know what happened to the picture with the snail's anatomy and/or why it was taken off? --Kaker42 (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Semicassis granulata the scientific name for this shell in this article. All references accessable state from NC to Brazil. I've not seen any challenges to this information so I assume it to be correct. The caption in the pictures states Italy. This contridiction needs resolution. Where did these images of Italian shells come from? Are they? or Are they not? the shell being described in this article? Either the range is wrong or the species designation in the picture captions is wrong. If there is a third option - then it needs to be clearly stated in the article. They are beautiful pictures; however, if they only look like the Scotch bonnet referenced in this article or if they are "closely related" then they need to go. Almost the same shell is misleading and desperate at best for a picture. Geez, they are a dime a dozen around here; go find one and take a clear picture - one of the shell - not an orange with a shell in the background.--JimmyButler (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, the page it links to offers a different picture of the same file (my mistake). Maybe if you just size it instead of making it a thumb it would look okay.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a size comparison! hahaha Reddevil1421 (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I got a nice specimen today, I'll see if I can take some nice pictures of it today and upload it. Joshyhmarks (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Note on those images
As I said in my note, it turns out that the live animal images are actually of Semicassis undulata which at one point in history was considered to be the same species as this species. These images are available on Wikimedia Commons, the media file project, and they were found by searching Commons using the name Semicassis granulata. These two images were in fact uploaded to Wikipedia titled as Semicassis granulata by the author of the images who was obviously not a gastropod expert and who did not indicate where the snails were found.

User:Snek01 put the images into this article, but he said clearly about these images in a note from December 16th, which is higher up on this page (my emphasis):

"it is also necessary to write a stub article [for] Semicassis undulata and add to this one the differences between these two species. Note that the actual images File:Semicassis granulata.jpg and File:Semicassis granulata 2.jpg (both uploaded by myself) are probably from the Mediterranean, and thus may be incorrect!--Snek01 (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)"

When I (User:Invertzoo) traced the images back to their source, the original website, the small print said they were from Italy. I put that into the captions so that the people working on this article would know that they have to do something about this. Yesterday I said:

"They are the related species Semicassis undulata. As suggested some time ago by User:Snek01, a stub should be created for this other species and the differences between the two should be discussed in this article. Invertzoo (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)"

Today I still say the same thing, create a very short stub article for that other species and put those images into it. The you can mention here that the two species are very similar and were once thought to be the same. Find a source to back that up. Invertzoo (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

My team is not ignoring this concern; we just addressed it in a different manor. Due to the lack of time, resources, and to the suggestion above we took out the pictures so that we do not have to make a stub explaining the differences. Thank you, though, for the suggestion. --Kaker42 (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

A shameful mess
This article has been through several stages where virtually the whole thing was a really shameful mess, an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and currently it is still is unacceptably riddled with all kinds of different errors. The WikiProject Gastropods editors who have been keeping an eye on this article over these weeks that this AP Biology assignment has been in progress, well, we have only left it the way it was out of respect for the educational process that is supposedly going on here, otherwise we would have been implementing a slash and burn policy on a lot of the content (which of course we could not do without simultaneously fixing the article up using our own labor and information we had researched and found.)

'When an article is being worked on, during the time that its accuracy is seriously flawed, the article should not'' be up in article space! It should be kept in user space (a subpage of one of the users) and worked on there until the information is reliable enough to go into the encyclopedia, and only then should it be put up.'''

In addition, Project Gastropods editors have left numerous notes to the AP biology students in the reviews, but our notes and offers of help have not been replied to directly, no thanks have been offered, and many of our suggestions have been ignored, brushed aside or dealt with by simple deletion of material.

This has been a very disappointing and frustrating experience, and I would not want to repeat it next year or any year in the future.

Invertzoo (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You should be ashamed. You wouldn't have touched this article if we had not started editing it. In case you needed to be reminded of this. I have made numerous edits myself, and the Wikipedia Criteria states that we make the appropriate edits that we think have addressed your concerns, and that is exactly what we have done. This is supposed to be a collabortive effort and we have taken all of your concerns and addressed them. Thanks! Reddevil1421 (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ooooo, an ad hominem attack, that's not kosher. Anyway I have not given up trying to help, more comments below. Invertzoo (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Cmon, you're told old to be fighting with a high school student, you know all of my attacks will contain some type of fallacy. I want to use Strawman next time, or maybe Slippery slope, or possibly Post hoc ergo propter hoc. By the way, Bio is not my only AP Class Reddevil1421 (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm impressed with the article. It has certainly come along way. Keep at it! Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is immensely valuable that teachers ask students to write and improve Wikipedia articles. Such projects have provided us with a substantial number of high quality articles already. If we can show that this is good education, the potential additions to Wikipedia are enormous. Think for example of how many AP students there are. Surely this is worth some friction. I would like to suggest that the gastropod experts alleviate their frustration by some small mindset changes. (1) Temporary factual errors in a few articles is not a catastrophy. Such articles should be marked (as here) of course. Such a marked article is not considerable worse than a stub, or no article at all. I think that the maximum time possible for such a poor state would be about 3 months. After this time the poor passages can be removed by anyone. (2) A deficient article should be quick-failed at GAN. It is not necessary to point out all problems immediately. It is valuable, but not necessary. What we are looking for here is a process where the experts cooperate without taking too much pain. I think that pointing out 5 obvious problems, say, would not be a taxing problem for an expert. (3) If/when the initial comments have been acted on, more comments can be made. This way the expert is spending effort according to fruitfulness. --Ettrig (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Question
This sentence: "The snail locates prey by sense of smell from a distance of at least 30 centimetres (12 in) away.[13]" seems incorrect. It can't smell something right next to it? Shouldn't it say "at most 30 centimeters?"--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. Reddevil1421 (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

However, another problem with that sentence is it has an incorrect source. --Kaker42 (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture

 * How's something like this?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Or something like this?-- Reddevil1421 (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I like Dom's. I am putting it up there! Reddevil1421 (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Anatomy
So for a good while now, i have been editing the anatomy section. Personally, I think it is vastly improved. Any more suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddevil1421 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you put Dom's picture in the taxonomy box; I think it fits more appropriately there. --Kaker42 (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Some more comments

 * ✅ The article once again has a problem with varying versions of how to capitalize "Scotch bonnet".
 * ✅ The only legitimate use of "It's" is where you mean to use a shortened form of "it is".
 * (If you can provide me with a legitimate source that states otherwise i will change it)  The source ncenvirothon.org was clearly written by an amateur and contains a number of pieces of misleading info about this species. For example, if you look at the size of the operculum in a related species in the same genus, Semicassis pyrum, looking at the second image down from the top on this page  you will see that the operculum is way too small to serve very well as a "drawbridge". It is way too small to seal the aperture (opening) of the shell.
 * (...) Whoever wrote that same ncenvironthon piece on the Scotch bonnet also seems to think that crabs such as the blue crab can crush the shell. Well, if you have ever tried to crush one of these shells underfoot you will find out that they are almost impossible to break up without being hit pretty hard with a hammer.


 * ✅ In the intro it says about the keyhole urchin that "The 0.16 inch hole in its shell is traced back to the Scotch bonnet". First off, you should link to the Keyhole sand dollar article. Secondly take a look at the pictures there. You will see that the keyhole urchin has five natural holes in it. You have to make clear that you are not talking about any one of these holes, which are part of the structure of the urchin.
 * (WILL DO) If one of you has a shell to photograph, it would really be good to show the other side, the opening, the aperture, as we suggested in a previous message. If you let the shell sit in sand (or something similar) you can pose it any way you want to.
 * (I need some help with this) Someone else has already commented on the thing about "The snail’s shell is either coiled to the left or right." That's only true when you are talking about all snails in the world. You are talking about just one species. Which way does it coil?
 * It coils to the right...right.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Invertzoo (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (NOTED) Using a general invertebrate zoology text as a source for anatomical information is usually not a good idea as it won't give you any information that is about this particular species. Gastropods are a huge group that has become extremely diversified over geological time, so it is always risky to try to generalize. Facts that apply to all of the species within the clade Sorbeoconcha belong in the article Sorbeoconcha, not in every one of thousands of species articles that could be written about each individual snail species within that clade. Invertzoo (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Reddevil1421 (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Teachers Perspective
Concerns


 * During the day, Scotch bonnets bury themselves in the sand, and at night, they feed ... I sought to verify that they were nocturnal. Your source does not support that claim. It is critical that information can be verified.
 * The 0.16 inches (0.41 cm) hole in its shell is traced back to the Scotch bonnet; this is not to be confused with the five natural holes that are commonly found in this animal. (Referencing Limpets) A nonsensical sentence in the introduction; that at best is out of place. There is a hole in key hole limpet - several apparently and the Scotch bonnet gets credit for one of them. You leave the reader to assume much…. The snail bites a hole? This results from “cherry picking” random facts and scattering them about; rather than researching and writing a comprehensive article.
 * It's body is similar to that of the general mollusk (Taken from the introduction). A filler sentence that contributes little to the readers understanding of this animal. In fact it is completely wrong; as there is no general mollusk plan that would lead to an understanding of this animal... they are a widely diversified group ranging from the Octopus to a slug. You would have been at least closer with the term "gastropod". Much of the concerns with this article center around your effort to make a generalized understanding of mollusk work in an article specific to the Scotch bonnet.
 * The taxonomy of the genus Semicassis is not completely settled. Perhaps not; but there must certainly be some information regarding its relationship to other mollusk. Its place on the evolutionary tree. In this section at least you could expand on the current thoughts behind its classification even if there is disagreement.
 * Scotch bonnet moves by sliding across a bed of slime, which is secreted from the glands at the bottom of its foot, in a rhythmic motion. Fortunately much of the convoluted sentence structure was dramatically improved; however, it is desperately in need of copy/edits to improve on clarity of statements. The loss of clarity here is apparent. Try this: They move in a rhythmic motion across a bed of slime that is produced by the muscular foot.
 * The snail’s shell is either coiled to the left or right. I suspect this is wrong. The shell coils to the left or to the right. Not both within the species. The side the aperture opens is a big deal in the shell world. I suspect this is the outcome of using information that is general to gastropods but not necessarily applicable to this particular species. This concern was raised by me in prior discussion - but went unaddressed?!
 * The mouth contains a tubular extension commonly known as a proboscis for feeding. They also has an extensible snout on the head. The concern here is reflected in the above statement. I'm highly skeptical of any information since the references used are generalizations concerning gastropods.
 * they also has an extensible snout. With three copy-editors someone should have caught this sentence. This is read by the world. Please capitalize they and fix the grammar (they... has).
 * The snail grows around a pillar inside the shell called the columella that is protected by a wall. Another cherry picked factoid that seems to be hanging in space. Does this line contribute to the understanding of this mollusk. It seems to require expansion. Why is a columella in need of protection? What is this wall to which you refer?
 * A snail's body is divided into three sections: head, foot and visceral sac. The mantle (pallium) represents a tissue fold coating the visceral sac. Introducing the information without some type of expansion is meaningless to the reader. This is filler information; added to increase content, but does absolutely nothing to help the reader better understand this snail. This reads like an invertebrate biology text book for college students. Make it relevant to this snail or leave it out.
 * The Scotch bonnet has four basic sense organs: tentacles, eyes and osphradia and statocysts. Drop an “and”
 * The tentacles contain tactile receptors. These chemoreceptor cells fold over each other to increase the chance for chemoreception. The tactile receptors are not chemoreceptor cells as you suggest in this passage. This question was raised earlier and remained unaddressed.
 * A pair of statocysts are located in the foot near the pedal ganglia, and are absent from sessile forms. This is random selection of gastropod info that is very misleading. Why mention the location of a statocysts – yet make no effort to define their function? There are no sessile Scotch Bonnets as you imply . This question was raised earlier and remained unaddressed.
 * Each eye is a simple pit that contains light sensitive photoreceptors and pigment cells. However, Barnes states that in higher gastropods, the pit is closed over and has differentiated into a cornea and lens. Barnes includes the Scotch bonnet in the loose category of "higher gastropods". Are you confident in your statement?
 * The blood of the Scotch Bonnet is isometric with the sea water. There seems to be an over-reliance on invertebrate vocabulary. Again - from randomly lifting sentences from Barnes without knowing enough to translate them into this encyclopedia forum. Try this: These gastropod adjust their internal salinity to match the environment.
 * The Embryogeny section should be merged with the Life Cycle Section.
 * The images have had a turbulent history. I've read the explanation; yet still fail to see why a different shell was inserted knowing it was not the same species with a request to add a disclaimer in the caption. Unfortunately, the much improved images of an actual Scotch bonnet were added after the deadline - thus are irrelevant to your grade. The belated effort of "post edit" damage control has been something of the history of this article. Throw it up - see what sticks. If that does not work try something else.
 * The reproduction section was lifted verbatim from Barnes Third Edition. Plagiarism is UNACCEPTABLE! I will stop here.... I refuse to spend time critiquing the work of Robert D Barnes PhD.

General Comment


 * Predators include crabs such as stone and blue crabs that can crush the shells and fish Address the fact tag that was added by citing your source that contained this statement. The shell gurus can argue with the NC Wildlife Commission.
 * The interactions with others within the Wikipedia community have been very disappointing. The lack of immediate responses to concerns raised, in several cases ignoring the comments completely. The allegation that immunity from criticism should be granted due to "high school status". Shocking. There is no component in grading to address immaturity; honestly, the personal attack was completely unexpected. Defend the article... never make excuses.
 * Current and past success on Wikipedia were dependent on the Research aspect of this project. A complete and total understanding of the content that you are adding is imperative. It cannot be achieved by random assembly of various factoids from a diverse group of sources. Such efforts create an eclectic disjointed article that is cumbersome to read and understand. This would have been avoided if, in the early stages of this project, you would have done a thorough literature review to determine if sufficient information was accessible to take on such a project.

Suggest for Future Improvement

The lifting of the Reproductive Section (since deleted) cast doubt over the value of this article and its status on Wikipedia. It demands a significant amount of work. From the class perspective... we are done. Whether the students desire to continue on their own is their option. Whether the article should be deleted... anyone / everyone has access to the revert key.--JimmyButler (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I will withhold assigning a grade (which will remain a private matter)until there has been opportunity for a response from the primary editors regarding my concerns. The insights from others are welcome; especially if they lead to improvement in the project as a whole or this article specifically. However, in regards to the grade... in the land of AP Biology - The Butler is King. --JimmyButler (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
This article appears to be a complete bust in every fashion, i suggest the article be deleted. I have attempted an failed pretty horrendously. I am sorry to the gastropod editors for the tremendous waste of time that you have spent contributing to this article.

I want to make a particular apology to user Invertzoo, she was an immense contributor. If this article would have made it to GA it would have been with her help. My comment was immature and uncalled for. In all truthfulness, I am truly thankful for your input.

Again, i am sorry for everything. Reddevil1421 (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A complete revert - not likely - certainly not needed. I suggest deleting the sections dealing with the anatomy harvested from Barnes that applies in general to all gastropods. I could make a list of positive contributions - but I'm much too irritated to throw you a bone at this point. Perhaps others will point out your achievements. Too bad the images were after the fact - they are actually impressive compared to the short - fat distorted version that was in there.--JimmyButler (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree; the article was not a complete bust. Compared to what it did look like, a lot has been done to it-even though some of it was misinformation. (I believe you are too hard on yourself.) We did, however, fail in the group aspect of the project, and procrastination really did hurt us, as we can see in the effort to just throw in information. We didn’t start really working as a group and responding to the help until recently, but by then it was too late. Sometimes we just have to learn the lesson the hard way. --Kaker42 (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * List has been addressed. Article represents a dramatic improvement over the stub that was inherited. Information has been verified. The distribution map could have been cleaned up easily in MS Paint; however, it was much easier to defend the lack of detail than to correct the problem. You should have fixed it (my students) - a matter of pride - especially since I saw no such item on the multitude of gastropod articles I viewed. We are done here... Yes?--JimmyButler (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, we contributed significantly to this article, but we're done here. Joshyhmarks (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)