Talk:Neotrypaea californiensis/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
There are a few minor issues identified below Done

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
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)[reply]
This article meets the good article criteria. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
"...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good spot! Added. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

References

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't see any more issues, appears to pass all GA criteria, promoting to GA. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]