Talk:Drymaeus poecilus/GA1

GA review

Passed. Cremastra _talk 22:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Daniel Cavallari (talk · contribs) 17:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Cremastra (talk · contribs) 15:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Initial comments after reading the article:

Prose itself is good.

Thanks! I'm doing my best as a non-native English speaker, so if anything seems unclear or awkward, please don’t hesitate to point it out! I really appreciate any help in making the article as polished as possible. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noticing a slight MOS:OL/WP:SEAOFBLUE issue. Remember that countries and nationalities, e.g. Bolivian and French don't need to be linked.

Thanks for noticing. I did some cleanup throughout the article, please verify. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

reticulate (net-like) I think we can just say "net-like" to avoid unnecessary jargon.

Indeed! Replaced throughout the article. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing in the WP:MTAU theme:
- The animal's head-foot is dark beige... the link explains what a mollusc foot is, but what is a head-foot?

Head-foot is actually a technical term used in gastropod anatomy. It refers to the visible soft parts of the animal outside the shell, which essentially consist of the head and the foot, structures that appear somewhat fused, with no clear boundary between them. There’s also the term "cephalopedal mass", though I must admit it's horribly cacophonous 😄! That said, I’ve revised the sentence to make it more accessible to non-specialist readers. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- The flagellum is also subcylindrical... what is a mollusc flagellum, please?

Added a brief explanation and a link to the appropriate article. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- In general consider defining and glossing more, especially in the "soft parts" section. Links are good when a technical term is alone in one sentence, but readers shouldn't have to click on three links to figure out what one sentence means. Both the epiphallus and the flagellum in D. poecilus are lined with cuboidal, ciliated epithelium containing subepithelial glandular cells is a little indecipherable.

Indeed...when you're neck-deep in specialized literature, it’s easy to become more accustomed to technical jargon than one should be. Thank you for pointing this out. I've done my best to address it by adding more context, including brief but clear explanations, and revising some of the links throughout the section. Please have a look when you can, and let me know what you think! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- Don't hesitate to give context. For example: Rounded cells were not observed in the subepithelial tissue of the distal penis of this species. Were they expected? Do some other members of the family have such cells?

On page 9, Breure provides an explanation of what a "typical" subepithelial tissue looks like in Drymaeus species. I've revised that section of the article to reflect this information and to offer a bit more context for the reader. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- axial markings in the lead and other axial things – do not expect the reader who wants to know more about the snail they found in their backyard to know what "axial" means. Please either link it or define it. Thanks.

That gave me a good laugh! I went ahead and added links to the term in a few relevant spots throughout the article. Who knows... maybe after learning what it means, the reader will start spotting axial patterns all over their backyard =P! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- Back to the lead: Its protoconch has a distinctive net-like sculpture, typical of the genus and related groups. Despite differences in shell shape and coloration, these are currently regarded as intraspecific variations. The second sentence confuses me. What are "these"? The net-like sculpture(s) or the shell shape and colouration? If that latter, there should not be a "despite", as it confuses the sentence. It should perhaps instead read: There are differences in shell shape and coloration, which are currently regarded...

Good catch! I've rewritten the sentence as per your suggestion. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- as been observed in a single specimen deposited in the Natural History Museum, London ~~(NHMUK 1908.6.12.6–15)~~. Unnecessary.

Indeed. Removed it as per your suggestion. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- based on mitochondrial (COI) and nuclear (H3, ITS2/28S) genes is going to require either some more linking, explanation, and acronym expansion, or a trim of less important aspects.

Did some more linking and rewrote a bit. Please let me know what you think! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consider including a range map in the infobox.

Now, this is the trickiest part: there’s no published distribution map available for this species. The only viable alternative, without crossing into the territory of original content, would be to create a map highlighting the states or provinces where the species has been recorded. However, since it doesn’t occur throughout the entirety of each state/province's area, such a map would fall short of scientific accuracy and could be misleading, IMHO. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the Distribution section, consider adding general descriptors of where the snail is found in a given country in addition to listing the provinces/states (e.g. It is found in inland and southeastern Brazil... or something like that). This gives international readers a sense of where it is in the country if they don't know where the states and provinces are.

Added general directions for Brazil and Argentina (the best documented distributions). Daniel Cavallari (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the cladogram, instead of listing all those species, consider giving just to 2–3 clades closest to D. poecilus. I expect the cladogram took a lot of work, but in this case I think less is more – the fact that Mesembrinus multilineatus and M. elongatus are sister groups is not really relevant here.

I've reduced the cladogram by grouping some of the clades to make it more concise. I could simplify it further by removing Antidrymaeus and Mesembrinus entirely, but I’ve opted to keep them for now, as their inclusion helps illustrate how the clade containing D. poecilus relates to these groups. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~{{taxonbar}}?~~
- nevermind, it wasn't showing because the wikidata item was empty.
I will do a source check next. Cheers, Cremastra _talk 15:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second look comments

Took a more detailed look at broadness and coverage.

Subspecies.
- WoRMS [1] lists two accepted subsp. including D. p. poecilus, and this [2] 1962 paper (p. 440/14 of 30) describes 4: percandidus, poecilus, and ictericus, tricinctus, and minor. WoRMS says that percandidus = Bostryx virgultorum and accepts tricinctus, but that still leaves two – ictericus and minor unaccounted for. I'll look into their fate (accepted, synonymized, forgotten...) but I think subspecies merit a mention in the "Classification" section.
  - Salvador et al 2018 list var. major and minor as synonyms of D. poecilus.
    - Indeed, according to [3], major should be treated as the nominate subspecies and minor as a synonym of it. icterius may still be valid, based on that source and [4]. Cremastra _talk 00:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - Never mind icterius is not accepted. Nonetheless subspecies merit a mention. Cremastra _talk 13:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Breure et al 2024 did a maximum-likelihood cladogram of some Peltellinae and paired things slightly differently despite overlap between the species they considered.

Actually, the phylogeny presented in Rosa et al. (2025) builds upon several earlier studies, such as Breure et al. (2024) and Salvador et al (2023), using the same core dataset, but expanding it with additional taxa (which explains the overlap you noticed). I’ve coauthored some of these works, including Rosa et al., and while I could incorporate a portion of the cladogram from Breure et al., the more recent phylogeny in Rosa et al. essentially represents an improved and better-resolved version of the earlier ones, at least with regard to D. poecilus, which is our current focus. With that in mind, I think a detailed discussion of the earlier phylogenies might be redundant here. It could, however, be more appropriate and useful in a future article focusing more broadly on Peltellinae in my humble opinion! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Cremastra _talk 00:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- I'd do small versions of each cladogram and note that the two studies came up with different results, like at Balanus trigonus § Genetics

I've reduced the original cladogram by grouping some of the clades. I believe it would be interesting to leave it as it is, just for the sake of showing how the clade that contains D. poecilus relates to the other groups, but I can reduce it further if you still believe it's necessary! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- - If you think this is a bad idea, however, I'll defer to your judgement, as you're the taxonomist here.
Other than that, looks good! Cremastra _talk 00:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source check

Here's the first half or so of the source spot check. I am aware that I am a page-number-obsessed pedant.


Ref #	Ref author	Comments
6	d'Orbigny 1836	Y Citing the original description, no problems here.
9	Scharpf 2023	?It strikes me as a little odd to cite a fish-related website for the origin of poecilia, but I guess that's the best option. It didn't occur to me I had a better option at hand! I've just replaced it, please check. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
12	Hupé 1857	?Page number? Definitely going to need one because BHL's in-text search returned no results. I'm not sure where the publication year "1857" came from – both the book's title page and the BHL details page give it as 1855. Sorry, the url was wrong here. I've fixed it now and included the relevant page reference as well. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] Y verified
14a	Pillsbury 1898	?Again, page numbers are needed, please. My pedantic side is asking: are we sure Pillsbury moved it to Drymaeus? He certainly uses that as the genus, but can we be sure he was the first? He doesn't explicitly say anything about it being a new combination. You're absolutely not being pedantic, it's a very reasonable question. Unfortunately, older works like Pilsbry's often did not clearly justify or indicate the status of new combinations or other nomenclatural acts. This only became standard practice way after the ICZN was established, and even more so with the development of modern taxonomy. That said, in cases like this, it's our responsibility as taxonomists to search thoroughly through every possible source to determine when and where each combination first appeared. This meticulous process is how formal synonymy lists are produced in taxonomic works, and indeed, that’s their primary purpose. To the best of my knowledge, all synonym lists for this taxon (some of which I compiled myself) cite Pilsbry as the first to use the combination Drymaeus poecilus. This pattern also holds for many other species that were formerly placed in Bulimus and later reassigned to Drymaeus following Pilsbry’s monograph (he was awesome!). Daniel Cavallari (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] One additional note: While double-checking the pages for the citations, I came across an error in the Taxonomy section, which I’ve now corrected. It turns out that it was Ancey (and not Pfeiffer) who recombined the species as Bulimulus poecilus, and in fact, he appears to be the only one to have done so. I’ve updated the section accordingly and added this combination to the taxobox, along with a reliable reference that includes a synonymic list citing Ancey’s act and work. Interestingly, this combination is missing from the current MolluscaBase entry, which might warrant an update there as well. I can look into arranging that. But in the meantime, with the sources provided, I believe our list may actually be more current than theirs in my humble opinion =) Daniel Cavallari (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] Okay, thank-you. Again, since you're the one with the degree in taxonomy, I will obviously follow your advice as opposed to vice versa. Cremastra _talk 14:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
14b	"	YYep, he talks about variation in the shell.
17	Breure et al 2015	NPurely a list of species; I don't see how this source is necessary as it says nothing about the snail's variability. Actually I messed up, the article I intended to cite was this Breure&Ablett2014. Nevertheless, upon reviewing it, I found that it only briefly mentions variation in D. poecilus and doesn’t add any substantial information beyond what’s already provided by Salvador et al. (2018). So, I’ve decided to remove the citation altogether. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
19	Salvador et al 2018	I think either use {{rp}} to point to specific page numbers in text or use end-of-paragraph citations to indicate specific pages. Other than that, this is good.
	Williams et al 1993	Y

Criteria checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: All concerns addressed, so this is a pass. Thanks for nominating. Cremastra _talk 21:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think there should be some work on the paraphrasing per WP:PARAPHRASE. For example; the article states "This medium-sized land snail possesses a shell measuring 31 to 37 mm in length, consisting of up to seven whorls." While the (translated) source states "A medium-sized land snail, the shell can measure between 31 and 37 mm in length and is formed by up to 7 whorls". I think one should still replace some words like "measure" with "reach" and "in length" with "long". LittleJerry (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and thank you for pointing that out, LittleJerry. For that particular section, I did a major rewrite to make the text a bit more accessible and engaging for casual readers, and also to avoid closely paraphrasing the original source. I’d love to hear your thoughts on the changes! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good! Now you just need to try that level of paraphrasing for the rest of the article. LittleJerry (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the sections that paraphrased the original sources more closely were Shell (done), Soft parts and Morphological variation. I'll work on the two remaining ones a little bit and see what can be improved. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LittleJerry I did some heavy rewriting throughout the article. Please let me know what you think! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! LittleJerry (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Cavallari Sorry for the delay in finishing up this review. Once page numbers are added to all PDF sources, and subspecies are breifly mentioned in the Classification section, I think this'll be good to go. Cremastra _talk 14:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your thorough and considerate review, Cremastra. I’ve now added specific page numbers (and page intervals where appropriate) to all references. I’ve also included a short paragraph mentioning the subspecies and their current pending status as synonyms (which I expect will be reflected in MolluscaBase/WoRMS soon). Please let me know if this meets yout expectations, and thank you again for your time and care in reviewing the article! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.