Wikipedia:Peer review/Eustrombus gigas/archive1

Eustrombus gigas
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review in order to prepare it for a future FA candidacy. A considerable amount of new information has been added since the GA nomination.

A complete MOS review is a dire need.

Thanks, Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber
First sentence is ungainly. I'd drop the fromer scientific name from here and go with:


 * " Eustrombus gigas, commonly known as the queen conch, is..."

✅ Agreed! I understand, since S. gigas is already listed as a synonym in the taxobox, repeating that information in the intro would be rather redundant.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is "Caribbean faunal zone" in quotation marks?

✅ This term needs a better definition. I will alter the text according to [http://www.nature.org/tncscience/files/spalding.pdf Spalding et al. 2007]. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * More recently, Simone (2005) gave a detailed anatomical description of the species - I'd prosify this by having the person's whole name and writing "in 2005" rather than year in parentheses.

✅ It's now prosified!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Taenioglossan  - a what?? (link or explain)

✅ That's true. It is now wikilinked.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The critical nursery habitats for juvenile individuals are defined by a series of combined factors, both habitat characteristics and ecological processes, which together provide high rates of both recruitment and survival - leaves us hanging - what are the factors?

✅ Added examples of each factor.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Small paras and segemented text are ungainly in Other uses section. Try to expand and/or combine paras.

✅ I reorganized the text from a logical point of view; First paragraph discusses other uses for queen conch shells altogether. The second one discusses conch pearls.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, promising. Taht's something to start on, more later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help! Best, --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Ucucha

 * Is there anything to link "Caribbean faunal zone" to? Red links are not a problem.
 * ✅ Text has been updated according to Spalding et al. (2007), and is now linked.Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You should be consistent in using or not using the serial comma.
 * ✅ Removed all the serial commas I could find. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Why aren't all synonyms cited? Also, the citations appear to be to the original descriptions; I think we instead need references that establish that these are synonyms of E. gigas. (You may also want to use the |synonyms_ref= field to cite all the synonyms; Oryzomys antillarum, for example, has a citation to a source that lists the synonyms of the species.)
 * ✅ Why not mix both ideas? Now all synonyms have citations to their original descriptions, and a reference that establishes them as synonyms is cited in the |synonyms_ref= field. Pretty much complete! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's what I also did, but I guess I wasn't quite clear here. :) Ucucha 15:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What makes http://www.worldwideconchology.com/fam/Strombidae.shtml a reliable source? Even if it meets the bar for reliable sources, it is probably not a high-quality source, which are preferred in FAs.
 * ✅ Though the information there may be supported by literature (they do cite some references now and then), there's nothing to make the site itself a reliable source. It has been removed. In fact, the statement about strombidae (or rather stromboidea in a wider sense) taxonomy may also be supported by Simone (2005), Latiolais (2006) and Landau (2008).


 * The information about etymology appears to be unsourced.
 * I don't think the Paleobiology Database should be considered a reliable source; it's got some things wildly wrong in mammals. The citations appears to be unnecessary, too—the citation to Landau et al. (2008) already provides sufficient sourcing for the sentence.
 * ✅ Agreed, and removed. The article by Landau itself is quite enough. What you've said comes as a surprise... I really thought PaleoBase was a reliable source! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume Linnaeus based his description on the image in Recreatio mentis? If so, it would be nice to mention it explicitly.
 * ✅ Not really, no. Linnaeus probably described the species based on a specimen from his personal collection, or such. That we'll never know. What we do know is that no such specimen survived the flow of time, and no type specimen existed until Clench & Abbott selected the figure-type from Recreatio mentis, in Johnsonia 1 (1). Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

✅ A few changes have been made by another user. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC) ✅ Paragraph removed! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The centered images disrupt the flow of the prose, and there may well be a MOS rule against them.
 * The last paragraph of the "Early illustrations" subsection doesn't seem to belong there.
 * Isn't the shell also part of the animal's anatomy?
 * Certainly, but there is a reason why to describe the shell before the rest of the animal's body. It's a standard procedure in malacology to divide anatomical descriptions into hard parts (mainly the shell) and soft parts (everything else but the shell). This procedure has been adopted by wikiproject gastropods. The vast majority of gastropod species descriptions are based on shell features. In most cases it's all you need to identify a specimen up to species level. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, the shell is part of anatomy, and it is odd to have it outside the "Anatomy" section. Perhaps have an "Anatomy" section with subsections "Shell" and "Soft parts"? Ucucha 15:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's possible, yes. But before I do any changes, I'll have to discuss this topic with project gastropods.Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅I went ahead and decided to Be Bold and place shell description and soft parts description under one heading, Anatomy. As yet Project Gastropods does not have any FA articles, especially not species articles, so I assume we will have to be open minded and find out what works best for this by trial and error. Invertzoo (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The long list of localities under distribution seems ungainly. You could perhaps replace it by a table, or remove it entirely and just have a general outline of the distribution. Are these just places where it happens to have been recorded or is there a biological reason Aruba is on the list while Curaçao is not? Also, you list South Carolina, but the map doesn't show it occurring there. And can you clarify what the reason for the dispute on the Brazilian distribution is? Are the records dubious or is the taxonomy confused?
 * I'll inspect this list closely. About the Brazilian distribution, as far as I know there is only one record of E. gigas off the northeastern Brazilian coast, and no voucher was deposited in any museum collection. Several Brazilian specialists believe this was a misidentification by the author, which got carried out in the literature. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Does Parker merit a link?
 * ✅ Well, why not? I could create a stub, and a biographical memoir may be found here, for a future expansion. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's best to drop the subsections from "Human uses", as "Other uses" is rather weak and the section is not overly long.
 * ✅ Agreed, subsections removed. Is it an option to leave them there as bold text for organizational purposes? Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the same arguments would apply against such bold text. Ucucha 15:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Animal Diversity Web is not a reliable source.
 * ✅ I agree, and it is not necessary in the end, since there are other reliable references for the same info. Removed. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That'll do for now; I'll probably have some more comments on reliability and consistency of references. Ucucha 00:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there Ucucha! Thank you very much for dropping by, and for your constructive criticism! I'll be reading and answering to each comment. Best wishes, Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Shyamal

 * A good read, especially for someone who does not know much about mollusks.
 * Thank you! We've been working in this article for quite a while, now. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The taxonomy section dwells a bit too much on the issue of type specimens. It is quite normal for Linnean descriptions to lack "full specimen" types (the type designation requirement was added much later) and to be based on illustrations.
 * This is true, but I believe it is an interesting information nonetheless, even for the average reader...Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

pdf pdf etc.
 * A search on Google Scholar with "Strombus gigas" (with quotes) and "Eustrombus gigas" produces a number of references and many of these are not found in the reference list. They may not be important, but it is a quick check for depth of referencing. There are papers on fisheries (culture/stock management), growth, shell mechanical structure and these topics do not seem to be sufficiently covered.
 * Hi Shyamal! I'm really happy that you responded to my invitation. Thank you! I'll be reading and answering to each comment ASAP. Best regards, Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Sasata
✅ I rewrote the two first sentences in the intro, and now mentioned maximum shell length.Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC) ✅ Modified as suggested.Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC) ✅ Regional common names moved to the article body by user Invertzoo. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC) ✅ True, that's odd... Removed!Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "…is a species of very large edible sea snail" vague - how up giving an upper size limit?
 * "This is one of the largest mollusks…" This->it
 * I don't think all of the foreign-language common names need to be included in the lead… this is English Wikipedia. The whole sentence and its multiple citations should be moved to the article body.
 * why is the CITES agreement cited in the lead? Isn't the citation in the article body sufficient?
 * Lead Article needs a copyedit to improve the flow of prose; it currently sounds a bit clunky. Some specific examples:
 * "This was the first book that was ever published that was solely about seashells."
 * ✅ Fixed. Invertzoo (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "The shells are however shown as if balancing on the edge of the lip and/or the apex, impossible balance positions for these shells." awkward
 * ✅Tried to improve this, also can be omitted if preferred. Invertzoo (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Over a hundred years later, a later colored illustration" ?
 * ✅ Sorry, a typo, now fixed. Invertzoo (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "… weighting up to 5 pounds."
 * ✅ Sorry, another typo that was overlooked, now fixed. Invertzoo (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

✅ Added nbsp; to all occurrences (even to the taxobox... is this usual?) Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "*ensure that occurrences of the short form E.nbsp;gigas have a non-breaking space
 * The taxobox automatically puts nowrap around the species name, so it's not necessary. Ucucha 15:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

✅ True indeed. Rewrote all I could find. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC) ✅ Repositioned the reference. About the direct link to the original description, do you know any link we could use? Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I read somewhere that one shouldn't start a paragraph, let alone a section, with "This"
 * How about a direct link to Linnaeus original description? Will make this article a more valuable resource for future snail scholars. Also, the entire first paragraph is incorrectly sourced to this citation. I doubt that Linnaeus, in 1758, knew that his chosen name Strombus gigas, would remain in effect for 200 years.
 * One can find the book Systema Naturae via Google Books, here . The genus Strombus is listed on page 80, but I have not yet located the species description, still looking. Invertzoo (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Oh, now I think this is probably not the 10th edition, so maybe does not have the species description in it? Invertzoo (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * where where the type specimens (which were lost) being kept?
 * I can say with a certain degree of certainty that it was a shell of the Linnean collection (but then I don't know a reference that clearly states this); Yet no one knows for sure, and no type specimen could be tracked. That's why Clench & Abbott designated a figure-type in the end.Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So now I've read this Catalogue of the Uppsala University Museum of Evolution, stating that the type specimen does exist, and is in the UUZM collection. It seems that Ohner (1953) found that S. gigas shell of the linnean collection, which Linnaeus used in his original description. I wasn't able to obtain this paper (or book, I don't really know), and it is not in the Zoological Record, but the UUZM catalogue should be reference enough, shouldn't it?.Daniel Cavallari (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

✅ Linked! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is Lobatus gigas not in the synonyms list? What's the story behind the synonyms in the taxobox not mentioned in the article?
 * link morphology
 * "Subadult shells have a flared lip which is however very thin." Why "however"? Are flared lips usually fat?
 * Yes, in fact, the shell of mature individuals have thicker outer lips. Generally, the older the specimen, the thicker the outer lip is! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * the image pileup and subsequent whitespace in "Other historic illustrations" is annoying
 * I agree with you ...This is awkward, but there is still text to be written in order to fill up that space. Some other books are worth mentioning, such as Chenu (1840 -1850's) and Kiener (1870-1880's). I'll work on it. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "…at depths from 0.3 m to 18 m[28]." should be consistent in giving imperial conversions, and in placement of citations after punctuation
 * "the females lay eggs in gelatinous strings, which can be as long as 75 feet." why is this one only in imperial units?
 * ✅ Sorry, an oversight. Added 23 m. Invertzoo (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * link mortality rate
 * ✅ Have linked it and added "the". Invertzoo (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there Sasata! Thank you very much for dropping by. I'll be answering to each comment as soon as I can. Best wishes, Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Invertzoo
I suppose I probably shouldn't really comment as peer review, because I have been too much involved in working on the article, but I just wanted to say:
 * I agree with Shyamal that there are fisheries references out there with a fair amount of info that is not yet included in the article. That all should be added when aiming for FA, because FA requires that all available information is included (phew!).


 * I am still struggling to find the best way to display the images in the "Other historical illustrations" section. I tried a gallery but that cannot take "alt text" info, which is required for FA. Any suggestions for handling those images would be welcome.


 * I also think the prose itself could use more refining, to make it more engaging. We will keep working on it all.

Invertzoo (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)