# Talk:Aliger gigas

I've placed a contradiction tag on these two pages thanks to the conflicting information regarding the largest mollusk in north america.  It seems clear the Conch is smaller, and that they are both mollusks, but I'll leave the solution to someone who knows more for sure to make the needed corrections.
Corpus juris 02:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks for your note. Invertzoo (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eustrombus gigas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Philcha (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The rules for GA reviews are stated at  Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.
When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with  Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it  Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and strike it out --
BTW I've occasionally had edit conflicts in review pages, and to reduce this risk I'd be grateful if you'd let me know when you're most active (UTC), so I can avoid these times. --Philcha (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I am happy to help out with the fixing up of this article if there is stuff that I can do. I don't really have access to the print literature right now though. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


### Coverage
(comment) No significant gaps at the top level - I may have further comments in specific sections. --Philcha (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


### Structure
Overall it looks fragmented to me. The article structures for gastropods that have achieved GA status may help as guides - Kerry slug (by a reviewer whose work I know) and Love dart (don't know this reviewer but looks competent). My own zoology articles are usually at phylum and sub-phylum level, and in these I typically have a different structure, as I need to make room for evolutionary history (see e.g. Arthropod) as well as a more detailed accouint of basic zoology:
Description, with sub-sections on: appearance; anatomy; feeding and excretion; respiration and circulation; reproduction and lifecycle; nerveous senses and senses. I may vary the order, e.g. in some cases a sub-section I usually place later may help provide background for a sub-section I usually place earlier.
Ecology, with sub-sections on: habitat and range; "prey", predators, parasites, etc.; interaction with humans (e.g. as food or parasites); threats and conservation
"Evolutionary history", including: fossil record; phylogeny
Classification (the old Linnean system, although molecular phylogeny is shredding much of this). --Philcha (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Sections are simplified and standardized. (For more info, if needed, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods#Universal_sections.) --Snek01 (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd change "Etymology" to "Naming" - see below. --Philcha (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Bits of material about threats and conversation all over the place. These should be consolidated and repetitions ratioalised. --Philcha (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I have reorganized most of the Conservation/Threats section, removing any conservation/threat related text that was outside of it, except of course for the Article Intro. I basically merged those sections and rewrote them, removing any redundancies I could find.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!

I shall not make further comments on the structure, as the current structure appears to be what WikiProject Gastropods wants. ---Philcha (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


### "Etymology" -> "Naming"
Change section title so as to handle name change as well. --Philcha (talk)
Etymology of Eustrombus. --Philcha (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Refs for etymology of parts of species name. If needed I can help, I remember some Greek and known where to look up. --Philcha (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Though I also remember some Greek, I wouldn't be able to find any references to support the etymology. Help would indeed be welcome.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a rusty degree in Ancient Greek, so can help in a pinch. --Philcha (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 Done Revision of name. Linnaeus said Strombus, who coined Eustrombus and why? I note CITES uses Strombus, is this a a sign of controversy, or some other reason? -Philcha (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
It happens to be that various subgenera within the Strombidae, including Estrombus, were elevated to genus level recently. Petuch (2004) and Petuch and Roberts (2007) recombined Strombus gigas as Eustrombus gigas. I can't say why, at least not now, though I can check this out later. As I was looking for more information, I also discovered that Landau et al. 2008 recombined E. gigas within a recently described genus, as Lobatus gigas. It's rather confusing to be honest! Either way, Malacolog  still uses Eustrombus gigas, so we might stick to that nomenclature for a while. I will create a section to explain that confusing taxonomy.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you hate it when that happens? Something similar happened to me recently. The textbook I use as a basic ref for zoology articles notes that gastropod taxonomy is being redeveloped with a wrecking ball. It would being prudent to have 3-4 good sources that support oneof the options and use that - and outline the alternatives. Sheesh! --Philcha (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I was able to get those papers (Landau 2008, Petuch 2004), and some other recent ones discussing this subject, and also got some info from other specialists. I'll update this info in the article ASAP. It seems that in fact, the currently most accepted taxon is Lobatus gigas. Would a move be be harmful to this article, regarding the GA review process?--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, bloody hell! You know the research, so will have to judge whether e.g. the name Lobatus gigas is a solid consensus or a bare majority. I know of other areas of zoology where there naming issues (e.g. in additional [1], Annelida has absorbed a few other previously-phyla), and we can't leave these under quarantine for years. If the article passes as GA (hopefully!), it should be listed under Lobatus gigas at WP:GA. While the review is open I'd expect WP:GAN should have the new name as well, but am unaware of any WP procedures on this - I'll check. --Philcha (talk) 07:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Daniel. Thanks for the copy of the note from Prof. Kronenberg. Is A molecular phylogenetic analysis of strombid gastropod morphological diversity the "Latiolais et al. (2006)" Kronenberg mentions? Re cladograms:
I'm not sure you'd want cladogram(s) in a species article, because then you'd want to include the same cladogram(s) in articles about closely-related species. Then if a an improved analysis appeared you'd update all the copies of the cladogram(s). Etc. If there are cladograms that are well enough suported, I'd must them up to a higher-level article, e.g. the family. --Philcha (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
If A molecular phylogenetic analysis of strombid gastropod morphological diversity is the right "Latiolais et al. (2006)" paper, the authors treat it as provisional, noting the small sample of taxa and the assumption that "extinction is not biased in terms of morphology or clade membership". ----Philcha (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Kronenberg's note to you mentions various taxonomies, none of which mentions Eustrombus. Re the choice between the alternative genus names, I'll leave that you. You'd need decent evidence that L. (or whatever) is current consensus. I also suggest you don't want to delve into details here. --Philcha (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there any doubt that x. gigas is one species? That could be some comfort? --Philcha (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Answering in order. First: Yes, this is the article he mentions (Latiolais, 2006). Yet, this is more complete than previous analysis, at least those I know. In any case, it corroborates some further presented hypothesis (In 2007-2008 works by other researchers). So, about the cladogram... I believe it is not necessary to include the whole hypothesis presented by Latiolais; We could in fact represent the Eastern Pacific/Atlantic clade Tricornis, which comprises S. gigas, S. gallus, S. costatus, S. raninus, S. peruvianus and S. galeatus and the immediate external group (S. latus). Some of those species already have articles in enWikipedia, and I would gladly create the other if needed. Second: Professor Kronenberg did in fact mentioned Eustrombus, as one of our options is to consider it at genus level. So it's our choice in the end. Third: There is no doubt at all that x. gigas is a species (no cryptics). Of that I think I am sure (at least)! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
So you're staying with Eustrombus gigas? If so, is it worthwhile mentioning Lobatus gigas? Your call. -Philcha (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think we should stay with E. gigas for the moment. If L. gigas turns out to be a valid name in the future, then we shall change it. Not to worry about right now!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
OK! --Philcha (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


### Taxonomy
 DoneNeed to resove whether name Lobatus gigas shoudl be mentioned. --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Done, see coments above. --Philcha (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can seen "queen conch" appears in lead but not in main text. I'd explain in "Taxonomy", citing Leal (2002) p. 139. --Philcha (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


### Shell description
 Done The referencing of first 2 paras ("The adult shell is from 15-31 cm ... colored pale tan" is poorly organised:
 Done Smithsonian Marine Station at Fort Pierce (Strombus gigas) is placed in the parentheses, but appears to apply to most of the first 2 paras. I'd cite it at the end of each para. --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Done!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 Done Leal (2002) simply gives the name Strombus gigas in a list with no futher information about the species. I'm not sure it's worth using. --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that was my mistake! I corrected the link, and also specified the page. S. gigas can be found on page 139 now.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can see, no source currently supports:
 Done "The periostracum is very thin, and colored pale tan". --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Corrected! Currently supported by Leal (2002), check the corrected link.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 Done "very thick and heavy" --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Substituting "thick" by "solid", now supported by Leal (2002).--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
"There is a stromboid notch on the outer lip. In life the left eyestalk protrudes through this notch."
Though this (the notch) is a common feature of most Strombidae, which can even be seen in some of the article pictures (the protruding eye can be seen in some of the pictures also). Correct me if I am wrong, but a solution could be to better describe its appearance and location, so any reader can verify it in the article pictures themselves. Do you agree? If so, I can easily describe it.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
You'd also need to:
Identify which of the indents is the stromboid notch.
Cites that the notch appears in E. gigas, as you note the notch is "a common feature of most Strombidae". --Philcha (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I've tried to better describe it, so the average reader may easily locate it. I'm not sure that this is satisfactory, so please give me your opinion!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
No citations for para "In contrast, the juvenile shells are a mottled brown and white ... The outer lip of an adult shell gradually increases its thickness with age." --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Now supported by Davis (2003)--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Please make sure that every statement is supported - see WP:V. --Philcha (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Also added a reference (Abbott) to support the juveniles being called "rollers". Still working on it.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 Done Best not to mix cm and mm. --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Fixed!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Later, probably near the end of the review, we need to decide which pics go where. Having 2 pics in the taxobox pushes the taxobox well into the main text and causes layouts in the first half of the text. In general pics should be selected and placed to support text. --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 Done "stromboid notch" is not a useful wikilink, as it links to the top of Strombidae rather than a specific section, and the relevant at Strombidae could be summarised here. This is also the first point at which the layout and image issues appear, as File:Eustrombus gigas.jpg would be very helpful here - in fact IMO File:Eustrombus gigas.jpg is one of the most images in the entire article. --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
A referenced article (Stromboid notch) has been created, so I fixed the wikilink.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. But see comments above. --Philcha (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
A pair of labelled pics would make it easier for readers to understand the terms used in the shell description. When we resolve the layout and pic issues, I'll show you how to use {{Annotated image}}, a tool I've found very useful in anatomy. --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 Done "environmental conditions (such as geographic location, nourishment and temperature) can greatly affect it" has 2 issues:
 Done The source is a MSc thesis, and that is a grey area in WP:RS - no evidence that it was externally refereed (and passed). I also note that it was dated 1991. If this work was considered significant by malacologists, I'd expect to see analyses or at least citations in academic books or articles. --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I added another source, hope it solves the problem.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 Done "environmental conditions (such as geographic location, nourishment and temperature) can greatly affect it" is a bit of a tease. I can understand if you can't fully describe the variations in shells caused by conditions, but 1 or 2 examples would be helpful. --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Added two examples, with proper reference--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 Done I copyedited to "determined by the animal's genes" (apostrophe). --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Please check every statement in the entire article has a citation from a good source - see WP:V. Then please say when this is done, and I'll continue the review. --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


### Taxobox
(do after main text sections, as these may provide refs and other useful things)

Need to clarify name. --Philcha (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Needs refs. --Philcha (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, what references are needed in taxobox?--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


### Links validity check
(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)
link checker

Ran this just now out of curiosity, the majority are fine but it seems that:
reference 15, "structure and regeneration of the eyes..." is now a dead link, and
the link to images and movies of the queen conch on arkive is problematic because it "changes path"
Invertzoo (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Dead link removed. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


### Check for disambiguation and other dubious wikilinks
(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)

shortcut for en.wikipedia.org with redirected and disambig page options selected - not working 11:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Dispenser's checker checks redirs of the article being reviewed
There are four diambiguations that need to go to the right articles: Cat Island, Clench, Swan Island, and Villa Clara. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


### Use of images
(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)


### Lead
(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)


### Review by Geometry guy
Unfortunately, Philcha has been taken ill, and has asked for another reviewer to take over this. I am willing to do so, although other reviewers may also be willing. I've made some minor fixes and copyedits (please fix or revert these if I have made any mistakes or you disagree with them).
On my read through, the main outstanding issue I noticed is the section on threats and conservation, especially the first paragraph. I am wholly supportive of the good intent to draw attention to a conservation issue, but please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not express opinions or make predictions without attribution to reliable sources. We should inform the reader about the facts, and present a balance of opinions in reliable sources, then trust the reader to come to their own conclusions. The language in the entirely uncited first paragraph is loose and opinionated ("Since these days... it is hard to enforce rules... If this continues unabated... will very likely be unable to recover.").
These are grounds to fail on criteria 1a, 2 and 4, and I don't want to do that on an otherwise very nice article! Geometry guy 20:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Geometry guy, Thanks so much for taking over the review; I am sorry to hear that Philcha is not feeling well. I just did now a clean up of that problematic paragraph to try to remove a lot of the POV. Perhaps we can find some sources to support what is left of the paragraph as needed. I am happy to try to do other clean up as necessary although I am not as "well read" on this species as  Daniel Cavallari is. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I've copyedited a bit, but may also have shifted the emphasis: feel free to correct. However, this paragraph does now need to be sourced, and the ultimate phrasing (vast, many, some, etc.) needs to come from sources. (Hopefully the paragraph is now easier to source.) Geometry guy 21:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

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, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I've now started a review above. The main failings are WP:LEAD (the lead does not summarize the article) and uncited material (many of the tagged sentences require citations according to the GA criteria). Since there has been no activity in the last month, these are reasons to close the nomination and not list the article. Other minor issues include image density (there are rather many in the first part of the article) and focus/neutrality (there's quite a lot on conservation issues). I'll keep the review open for another couple of days in case there is renewed effort to fix the article. Geometry guy 21:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Now closing. Apart from the sourcing, I'm not completely convinced by the balance of the article or the lead, so I can't list it as a GA at this time. Please renominate once the issues raised above are addressed. Geometry guy 22:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- - - - - please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - -
If you want to start a new section of the Talk page while this review is still here, edit the whole page, i.e.use the "edit" link at the top of the page.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eustrombus gigas/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 13:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am reviewing this article and will add comments below. I have no special knowledge of the subject material and will mostly be addressing prose and MoS concerns. Some copy editing I will do directly and you are free to revert anything I do.

I rewrote  o the opening  to reduce overlinking to common words and reword slightly.
Thank you! I its way better now, in fact.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
These external links do not connect. If you have the paper copies, perhaps you should use those as references:
Ref 23 http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/umrsmas/00074977/v15n2/s4.pdf?expires=1271175167&id=56166969&titleid=10983&accname=Guest+User&checksum=186662329BBD566AF7E23C5C64C63BC4
Ref 31 http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/umrsmas/00074977/v25n3/s1.pdf?expires=1271258836&id=56189379&titleid=10983&accname=Guest+User&checksum=BA69BC43CA55CBDBB869D4B848F8226E
Well it seems like ingenta connect has many issues! I have the papers here, that is true. I've tried to add external links for verifiability purposes, of course. Do you believe it would be necessary to remove those?--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Xtzou (Talk) 13:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I fixed both broken links; Both references can be verified in ingenta connect for free. The sole problem is you can't redirect links to their page. Sad, but true! Anyway, problem solved.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
There are too many short paragraphs, giving the text a choppy look. The prose lacks fluidity.

B. MoS compliance: 
There are too many headings leading to a cluttered look and that inhibit the flow of the prose. Too many short sections.
There is overlinking of wikilinks e.g. in the Distribution section, only unfamiliar places that an English reader would not be expected to know should be linking.

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
These references need to be fixed:
Ref 23 http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/umrsmas/00074977/v15n2/s4.pdf?expires=1271175167&id=56166969&titleid=10983&accname=Guest+User&checksum=186662329BBD566AF7E23C5C64C63BC4
Ref 31 http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/umrsmas/00074977/v25n3/s1.pdf?expires=1271258836&id=56189379&titleid=10983&accname=Guest+User&checksum=BA69BC43CA55CBDBB869D4B848F8226E

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: 
There are too many images, so that the layout looks jumbled. An effort should be made to avoid sandwiching text between images.
Captions that are not full sentences should not end in periods.

Overall:
Pass or Fail: Pass! 

I will put this on hold for seven days. Also, I will work with you and attempt to help in any way I can.  Xtzou (Talk) 15:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
To solve the picture problem completely, I see only one reasonable solution. By removing the picture [2], which details the eye and sensory tentacle, we could move picture [3], which details the whole animal, to the right. In fact, picture [4] is a crop of picture [5], so it is not really completely necessary, I believe. What do you think?--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but I rather like that closeup of the eye stalk. It is one of the few pictures of the actual animal rather than the shell. There are a lot of shell pictures. Are they all necessary? Also, and this is probably a dumb question, but how much of the shell does the animal life in? All of it?  Xtzou (Talk) 18:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry, there is no such thing as a dumb question. Answering is my pleasure, specially regarding this specific topic! Well, the animal can actually retract its whole body to the inner chambers of its shell. Some gastropods can do this, and even seal the shell aperture completely using their operculum! This is not the case of E. gigas, however. So it may retract as a defense response, for example. While the animal is active (moving, feeding, and so on) the foot, snout and eyestalks will usually be exposed, while the visceral hump (which contains several internal organs and such) will always remain inside the shell, very well protected! As for the shell pictures, well... They are necessary from a taxonomic point of view. Shell morphology is very important in the identification process. Oh I was in a rush and had to leave just a while ago. I did some improvements in fluidity and reduced the number of paragraphs. Also, about the shell pictures, they are not mandatory... Is creating a gallery at the article's end an option?--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a gallery is an option, AFAIK.  Actually, you have managed to neaten up the pics, so they look good now. I will read through the prose.Xtzou (Talk) 20:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Further comments

Is it possible for you to expand a little on the topics? What you have is very technical to us lay people, and it would help the article to have more text to carry the many images. Ideally, an image would not interrupt a header. And ideally, text would not be sandwiched between images.
For example, rather than just link to Commensals, could you have a brief explanation of the technical terms in the article? Your explanation above was very enlightening. Is there any way you could make the article convey some of the same explanatory flavor?
I have expanded several concepts and terms. Check it out when possible!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
There is an external link in the article, which is a no no.
Where is it now? I'm sorry, I didn't noticed!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The external link is in the last section, in the last sentence, I believe.  Xtzou (Talk) 21:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Fixed!Added as reference. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
You had conch fish and its Latin name red linked. I think only one of them is likely to  become an article.
You're correct, I agree.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
"Drawings of an adult and juvenile shell of Eustrombus gigas from Index Testarum Conchyliorum (1742) and Manual of Conchology (1885):" Here you show the drawings. Is there any way you could explain what the drawing show, not just for the general audience, but keeping in mind that many readers do not see images either because of handicaps or because they have disabled images in their browser.
Done. I hope it is sufficient! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I wish you would explain what the pictures of the shell are supposed to show under Shell description, even though I am a sighted person I cannot tell. There should be some description in the text regarding what the pictures show.  Xtzou (Talk) 00:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe I got it this time! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
But when you say "In contrast, the juvenile..." it is not clear to me what the contrast is. Xtzou (Talk) 00:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Gave it a more precise meaning. I hope my grammar is correct, I'm trying as hard as I can as a non-native speaker! Feel free to correct it, as you see fit.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that you never describe the various adult shells. It doesn't matter which images are colored, but it matters what they show about the shells. Whether is is ventrical or dorsal, what are the descriminating features? Xtzou (Talk) 00:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh I see... Well, the paragraph below the picture gallery is not intended to be related to it whatsoever! If it is confusing that way, a paragraph reorganization can be arranged. So, in the picture pargraph, should I briefly list the distinctive characters which a reader would be able to notice in the pictures, such as "the tall spire, flared outer lip, are distinguishable in the adult specimen drawings" and so on? The overall adult shell morphology is actually described in the text preceeding the picture announcement, just after the header. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, as I have not a clue what to look for. And if you could link the jargon words, that would be very helpful. The problem is, how does a person like me learn about shells etc., if the articles are over my head?   Xtzou (Talk) 00:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Reorganized the paragraphs, linked some technical terms, and wrote some guidance as to what look for in each picture. Would that be satisfactory? I tried to do so in a way that I mentioned the structures, so that even a handicaped or image-deactivated browser user would be able to know what is being depicted in the end.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, you did a great job. I find it much easier to follow. It is a very informative article.  Xtzou (Talk) 15:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
I made a few more minor wording changes.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Article is well sourced, with no original research.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
The article remains focused on the subject while covering the relevant areas.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Overall: A wonderful, concise article
Pass/Fail: 

Congratulations! A fine article. Xtzou (Talk) 15:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

In section 6.4 "Interspecific Relationships", paragraph 2, it seems that "Chicoreus pomum" is given as the formal name for "apple murex". However, I checked out the references cited for the article, but could not find any mention of apple murex in the references. Does anyone have a source which can confirm this? Or even just professional knowledge which can confirm it?
I ask because the Chicoreus pomum wikipedia article makes no mention of apple murex. If these two things are related, that article needs to be modified to reflect the relationship between the two names. I am willing to make that modification, but I have no solid proof (other than section 6.4 of this Eustrombus gigas article) that the two are really related.
Also, if I have this all confused, and this (Eustrombus gigas) article does not mean to assert that there is a relationship between Chicoreus pomum and apple murex... then I hope someone can reword the apple murex sentence to make it clearer to non-experts like me who are interested. Thanks. Fallendarling (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello there Fallendarling! Thank you for your feedback. It's a pleasure to know that you're interested in the article, for whatever reason. Now, to answer you. I'm a malacologist, not a specialist in the group, but yet I believe I can clarify this situation. First things first. In taxonomy there are scientific names we biologists designate as synonyms; They are called so because they are different names, and yet are used for a same taxon (in this case, a single species). The classification of organisms is an ongoing process. New names are proposed now and then, and sometimes species are transferred into new genera, and so on. It happens to be that Chicoreus pomum is the current accepted name for this species, and there are several synonyms for it. You may have heard about the "apple murex" as Murex pomum, for example. So Murex pomum and Chicoreus pomum are one and the same. You can check this out, and many other marine species at the World Register of Marine Species website. Now, on to the common name. The common name is indeed Apple murex, as you will be able to see in page 131 of Leal (2002), for example. Feel free to add this reference to the C. pomum article, if you wish to. Best wishes! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Lobatus gigas 01.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 7, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-06-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng  {chat} 19:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC) 

Recently it seems that an IP address editor changed all of the US spelling in this article to British spelling... I don't know how well thought out these changes were. This species is a New World species and it seems not unreasonable that the text should be in American English, although you could argue that the Caribbean islands that used to be part of the British West Indies still use British spelling. Does anyone have an opinion on this? Invertzoo (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Per request, edited this. Feedback encouraged! Comments:

Left a tag to address a "some said" statement.
Which countries adopted the proposed import ban?
It would be good to see pics of the animal, in and out of the shell.
Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to comment that the animal doesn't really exist "out of the shell" unless you are doing a dissection, because the shell is part of the animal, in the same way that your skull is part of your head. A shelled gastropod is not like a hermit crab that can change shells and exists independently of the shell. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

23:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)~
"In Andean prehistory, Aztecs used the shell as part of jewelry mosaics such as the double-headed serpent.[68] "
This doesn't make sense, the Aztecs were in Mexico, not the Andes, the Inca were in the Andes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.64.47.29 (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC) 

True indeed. Fixed it.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lobatus gigas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305152402/http://www.revistasusp.sibi.usp.br/pdf/azmz/v37n2/a01v37n2.pdf to http://www.revistasusp.sibi.usp.br/pdf/azmz/v37n2/a01v37n2.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707134201/http://www.cites.org/eng/com/AC/19/E19-08-3.pdf to http://www.cites.org/eng/com/AC/19/E19-08-3.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Lobatus gigas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20130114164045/http://192.204.19.100/museum/digital_collections/shells/chenu.php to http://192.204.19.100/museum/digital_collections/shells/chenu.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714143620/http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=queenconch_4434.pdf&objid=-1595&dltype=product to http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=queenconch_4434.pdf&objid=-1595&dltype=product
Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0256e/i0256e.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923210124/http://www.conchologistsofamerica.org/publications/pdfs/201103.pdf to http://www.conchologistsofamerica.org/publications/pdfs/201103.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923210130/http://www.conchologistsofamerica.org/publications/pdfs/201109.pdf to http://www.conchologistsofamerica.org/publications/pdfs/201109.pdf
Added archive https://archive.is/20130129175206/http://gia.metapress.com/content/v1005136k21m0777/ to http://gia.metapress.com/content/v1005136k21m0777/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101021005816/http://www.cites.org/eng/notif/2003/057.shtml to http://www.cites.org/eng/notif/2003/057.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606222430/http://www.conservation.bm/queen-conch/ to http://www.conservation.bm/queen-conch/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Some of those images could be useful for the article:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rstehn/23329535369/in/photostream/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rstehn/23588931242/in/photostream/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rstehn/23374019763/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rstehn/24008051975/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rstehn/23892467072/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rstehn/23635047250/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rstehn/23822177012/
--Snek01 (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

A quick read over of this excellent article seems like it should be considered for featured article. Just a few ref fixes here and there. Has anyone considered this? Mattximus (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)