Talk:Slug/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 07:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to review this article. Before going through it in detail, I can see that it has some problems. When you have responded to them, I will make a more detailed study of the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First observations[edit]

Many of the paragraphs are too short. Combining some will make the article read more smoothly.

Done I combined paragraphs throughout the text. Let me know if further merging is needed! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the paragraphs and facts stated have no references. These are not normally necessary in the lead section because it is supposed to be a summary of the information found elsewhere in the article.

I'll try and provide some references, but this may take some time. I'll update when I'm done.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a good book here. It doesn't cover everything in detail, but it will be a good reference. I'm focused on the Laevistrombus canarium FAC, but I'll not quit this GA review yet. There is much to improve! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sentences like "Some species of slug secrete slime cords to lower themselves onto the ground, or to suspend a pair of slugs during copulation." definitely need citations.

I am sorry I don't have time to set this up now as I have to finish packing, but the article Limax maximus has a photo of suspended slugs and also this illustration ( File:Limax maximus mating.jpg) taken from Taylor J. W. (7 November) 1902. part 8, pages 1-52. Monograph of the land and freshwater Mollusca of the British Isles. Testacellidae. Limacidae. Arionidae. Taylor Brothers, Leeds. page page 38, figures 58-65. John William Taylor made these drawing after sketches by Lionel E. Adams. Perhaps that book could be used as a reference? Invertzoo (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting of the references is inconsistent.
Some thought should be given to the section headings and their contents.

Further observations[edit]

The "Morphology and behavior" section is rather brief. It mentions the head and tentacles and the mantle but doesn't say much about the foot or internal anatomy of the slug. The article Land snail could be used as an example of how these topics could be covered.

This section has been divided; Behavior is now included in "Ecology and behavior", following Project Gastropods standards. Still I agree that the remaining text is too brief... "Slugs" as an informal group includes a wide variety of taxa, which may be radically different morphologically (as in Veronicellidae versus Limacidae). Would it be better to focus on describing the similarities between them, or should we describe each group in detail? --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Vestigial shell" section could be combined with the previous section.

Done --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Predators" section could be merged into "Ecology". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

I'm stepping in. I'm traveling on vacation at the moment, so I don't have much access to primary literature now (normally I do, snails are my field of expertise). But I'll try to help as much as I can! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to help out here and there as best as I can, but I am currently about to embark on a 2-week trip, during which time I will be busy IRL. Invertzoo (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick response. The GA criteria require that a Good Article be "broad" in its scope rather than "comprehensive" as in Featured Articles. At the moment the "Human relevence" section (which by the way is good and well-referenced) rather outweighs the rest of the article. There is no hurry about this review, however proper referencing of the article is important. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An Update: Added a good deal of info on predators and parasites, references included! Reference formating is still inconsistent though. Working on it! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Predators and Parasites sections are looking good but the Behavior section needs attention. It is largely about one species of slug and its unique behavior, and includes two overly complex convoluted sentences (sentences 1 & 4). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did some rephrasing. Please tell me if the writing is better and more understandable now. Furthermore, I see no problems in keeping the information on the Kerry slug. After all this is an exception to the general pattern of behavior that draws the attention of the casual reader, IMHO. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I hadn't really thought about slug behaviour but I put the words into Google and found this which I thought was quite interesting. I will go through the article in detail in the next couple of days. Delighted to have you working on improving it but I wonder what happened to Rcsprinter who nominated it for GA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the nominator Rcsprinter on his talk page. Here is my note to him and his reply:

"Hello Rcsprinter, How are you? Just wondered if you are going to be involved in any way with the GA process for the Slug article? Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)" [reply]

":Don't think so actually, staying out of it. Worked on it beforehand. Rcsprinter (converse) No, I'm Santa Claus! @ 10:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)"[reply]

I see I had said I would go through this thoroughly in 2 days but I got distracted. I have instead been interacting with Daniel on his FAC. I'll come back to the Slug GA when my Xmas guests have departed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More detailed review[edit]

"i.e. snails whose shells are too small for them to retract fully into" - I think this should be rephrased so as to avoid having "into" as the last word
The Description section has several citation needed tags. It could be expanded to include some information on the snail's internal anatomy
Limacidae, Parmacellidae, Philomycidae, Onchidiidae and Veronicellidae need wikilinks
"other slugs coming across a slime trail can recognize the slime trail as produced by one of the same species, which is useful in finding a mate." - I think this could be better expressed, maybe in 2 sentences
"Body mucus provides some protection against predators, as it can make the slug hard to pick up and hold by a bird's beak, for example, and the mucus itself can be distasteful." - ditto
"A few days later, the slugs lay around 30 eggs in a hole in the ground, or beneath the cover of an object such as a fallen log." - This implies that they remain in company and lay in the same hole which I think is not the case
"Most carnivorous slugs on occasion also eat dead of their own kind." - This could be moved to the next paragraph.
"Slugs can be a vector of transmission of parasitic nematodes that cause lungworm in various mammals, so are usually avoided by hedgehogs and other mammals when other food is available." - I would suggest substituting "for the" for "of" in this sentence and I don't think the "so" is advisable. I doubt the mammals know much about nematodes.
" which can make individual items unsuitable to sell for aesthetic reasons," - I would substitute "for sale"
The lead should be a summary of information explained in greater detail elsewhere in the article. Currently the last paragraph of the lead contains information that is not found elsewhere in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to the reviewer. I regret that this article was nominated for GA review by someone who was not prepared to work on it during the review process. In addition, the nominator had failed to check with the gastropod project members before submitting the article; we had listed the article only as a "C", and would not have agreed that it was ready for an attempt at GA. Although some improvements have been done now, and I may try to do a few more over the next week or two, the most active gastropod project members all have other business they are involved with, and I believe they are not going to be able to do all the work necessary to bring the article up to the necessary level. Can we perhaps withdraw the submission at this late date, something I would have suggested before if I had known that was a possibility. Sorry and thank you, Invertzoo (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at the instructions for GA reviewers, I see that the only way of withdrawing a nomination after the review has started is to use the fail process. So I am closing this review now and hope that this article will be renominated at a later date. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to the reviewer for all the good work. Apologies that this was submitted inappropriately, and I hope that it may proceed to a higher level not too far in the future. Invertzoo (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]