Talk:Caprella mutica/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll copyedit as I go through (please revert any changes I make which accidentally change the meaning), and jot queries below...Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'd make the lead all singular - it scans funnily starting in singular and going to "They..." in second sentence.~~

Dunno. The species name is singular, but it refers to a group, thus plural seems more appropriate. Note that "skeleton shrimp" in the lead sentence is actually plural.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I can see why you've done it, bu don't know (if at,say, FAC), someone might push for this...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Can't find the original paper or the first name of the author even. I assume it has something to do with them being found on Sargassum muticum rather than any bluntness on their body parts (they are actually one of the spinier caprellids). As for the generic name, none either. Like most early taxonomists, Lamarck did not explain it in any way. Seems to be Latin for "small goat", but how and why it is so is not explained.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, you done what you done. Agree it is often tricky with early taxonomists when there is a Latin or Greek word and it has some oblique or tangential relation to the critter...but you can't be sure....I thought little goat was "Capella" without the R....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh. I think I found the meaning. Lamarck's paper followed the pattern of "Common name. Genus". For Caprella, the entry was "Chevrolle. Caprella". I found an entry in Glossaire du centre de la France (1864): "CHEVROLLE, s. f. Courtilière ou taupe-grillon." In a French dialect in 19th century France, chevrolle apparently referred to mole crickets. And mole crickets have similar front appendages as caprellids. That said, the former was also probably derived from chèvre ("goat"), as the word also survives today for a kind of goat cheese - chevrolle. Capella was probably more derived from caprella, hence the latter became Lamarck's choice for the New Latin name. It's all conjecture though, unusable, meh. :/ -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'd move the material on temperature tolerance up to para 2 or thereabouts in the Habitat section.~~

~~all reference titles should be in title case (or sentence case but most in title case already....?)~~

As in a previous GA article of mine, I'd prefer if books are in title case and italicized; and journals and chapters of books in sentence case and enclosed in double quotes, as in usual practice. Or did you mean the <ref="NAME"> bit? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, I didn't see the pattern. okay then, that's fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mouthparts, which include the mandibles and maxillae, are present at the anterior ventral surface of the cephalon. Maxillipeds, a modified pair of appendages, also serve as accessory mouthparts. - be good if we could get rid of the repeated "mouthparts" but don't sweat it if you can't think of any alternatives. Also, these two setences look a bit lonely and it'd be good if they could be tacked onto a paragraph somewhere...but which.....

Done Removed the first mention of "mouthparts". It makes the meanings of maxillae and mandibles more obscure, but they're linked anyway. I've tacked them unto the previous paragraph which also deals with cephalic stuff. Dunno... fits roughly I guess.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, refs 7 and 15 do not have close paraphrasing when using the duplication tool Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Added source for data in the files themselves (that what you meant?).-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Picture is unpublished elsewhere AFAIK, uploader probably meant with permission of a friend or something who took the picture (happens with inexperienced uploaders). That said, I've replaced the picture entirely.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

- ~~see above minor issues to settle~~

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

- ~~nearly there. Few minor bits and pieces to sort out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)~~ great, nice work. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]