# Talk:Socorro springsnail

This review is transcluded from Talk:Socorro springsnail/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I will begin reviewing this article. As it stands, it looks very choppy with alot of small sections. I will meld them a little for prose. Please revert any changes I make where I inadvertently change the meaning. I will post queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for grouping sections. Invertzoo (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Given this is prose, can we have a few words on who Burch, and Hershler and Thompson are? Anything from first names to institutions they belong to, nationalities or occupations would be enlightening.
Full names added also with nationality, occupation and institutions, full reference added also for Burch. --Snek01 (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The principal spring source where the Socorro springsnail is currently found has been impounded - what does 'impounded' mean here?
I made an attempt to fix this. Invertzoo (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The locality is on private land and access to the spring has been denied since 1995 - what does this mean, the landowner has refused access to scientists etc? Wow! Is there any further information? what about the jurisdiction? Can the landowner be challenged etc?
The section about the non-access was expanded. There is possible to add other sentence if needed: "It will continue to be very difficult to assess the status of the species until the land owner grants access to the site or land ownership changes." There is a section "Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms" on page 5 in [1], but I do not fully understand that section. I understand it like this: There is lacking of adequate existing regulatory mechanisms for this case. Maybe regulatory mechanisms protect the species on public lands only, as it is written in the article Agalinis acuta. --Snek01 (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I am still amazed that a private landowner can block access to an endangered species like this and the government have no jurisdiction. Will read over again. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I just read the government source [2] and on page 7 section 2.4 they say (my emphasis) "Access to the site has been denied since 1995. Designation of critical habitat was determined to not be prudent at the time of listing because the threats of vandalism and collection outweighed benefits that designation may have bestowed." In other words, I believe they are saying that it is possible for the government to step in and seize the land for public ownership if they were to use the "critical habitat for an endangered species" clause, but they were afraid to do so because they thought if it became public land, this tiny snail would perhaps become even more at risk of extinction due to possible vandalism and collecting of specimens by shell enthusiasts or dealers. I think that is what they mean... Invertzoo (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Tomorrow I can try to call a friend in Boston who is sort of an expert on freshwater invertebrates because he may know more details about this kind of law. Invertzoo (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes! I see it does mean that. The law is detailed at Endangered Species Act. Invertzoo (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I inserted a paragraph about this whole issue. That seems much better now, right? I Hope so anyway. Invertzoo (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Overall, the article is a little thin. I will sleep on it and get back to suggesting other improvements. Interesting subject :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Update sorry about the delay. Will get something concrete here soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Can "short-spired" be explained in plainer English at all?

Had a go at fixing that. Invertzoo (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
low-velocity water --> slow-moving?

Yes that is a good way to describe that. I put that in. Thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, bear with me while I sling up the criteria in a sec and see how the article scores...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Against the criteria
1. Well written?:

Prose quality: 
Manual of Style compliance: 
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: 
Citations to reliable sources, where required: 
No original research: 
3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: 
Focused: 
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

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: 
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Images need WP:ALT text.
I provided alt text for both images. Invertzoo (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Overall: 

Pass or Fail: 
This has been a tricky one, when we are dealing with an organism, the knowledge and available information about which is meagre. I think, taking this into consideration, the article does pass as there is precious little else we can add (I am dead curious to know why the landowner won't allow access but if we can't verify it to a reliable source then we can't..oh well)