# Talk:Scotch bonnet (sea snail)

Grammar looks alright, but I miss the old image. It was beautiful. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. They were lovely images but... although they were uploaded to the Commons as Semicassis granulata, it turned out that the snails were from Italy, and so they were images of a similar but Mediterranean species, Semicassis undulata. Those images are now illustrating that species article stub, which is brand new. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The Mediterranean sea snail is now considered to be a subspecies of the western Atlantic one, so the nice image is back again! Invertzoo (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
But now that snail is considered to be a separate species once again, so it is gone again! Invertzoo (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The current Distribution text implies that the west coast of Florida is part of the East coast of USA. Should this be changed? --Ettrig (talk) 11:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it should not be changed. The East Coast of the United States is defined as the coast of the eastern states. Likewise the Gulf Coast of the United States is defined as the coast of the Gulf states. Peculiarly, this means the the coast of Florida belongs to both the Gulf Coast and the East Coast, so the separation made in this article is a bit awkward. --Ettrig (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Geez Ettrig - you are not going schizophrenic on us.... are you!!!? I still have high hopes for the Bog Turtle and was counting on your help. --JimmyButler (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you mean dual personality. This confusion is mentioned in schizophrenia. I still think it is very odd that Miami is considered to be on the Gulf Coast. I issued an ultimatum concerning plagiarizing in Bog Turtle. As a consequence I moved focus when they persisted. Very good article though. Thought your project has ended for this time. Really hope you come back in the fall. --Ettrig (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Come back?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
This is the 2nd time Mr Butler requests that his AP Biology students write Wikipedia articles. I hope he will do this again. I do not hope he is going inactive on Wikipedia in between the AP Biology courses. But I expect him to do and hope he will come back with a new class after that. What am I missing here? --Ettrig (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
No, no, come back to the bog turtle?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article a fair bit, but I have not checked the references. This needs to be done carefully to make sure they clearly support the facts presented in the text of the article. 
Note: Reference number 13 is not from a North Carolina government site, despite the fact that the site has what looks like an "official" seal, it is in fact a private organization. The Scotch Bonnet piece there was clearly written by an amateur, and it contains a lot of misleading information that was cobbled together from a lot of sources, most of which are not mentioned on the site. It would be better to remove all of the information that relies on that one source, which is cited 17 times! Perhaps we can track down better sources for a lot of the info. For example, in that essay, the phrase about the species laying heaps or towers of eggs is taken from "A Guide to Field Identification, Sea shells of North America" by R. Tucker Abbott, 1968, but the fact was a description of the whole family Cassidae! This particular species lays towers of eggs, not heaps, as is shown in an illustration in that same book, page 117. I changed the text, but did not change the reference yet. Invertzoo (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If I not mistaken, the North Carolina Wildlife Commission is a division of North Carolina state government. They provide numerous educational outlets including research centers and educational publications. The NC Wild  documents are developed by the Division of Conservation Education, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission. Whether Sarah Friday is an amateur; I've no way of knowing :) Their more current documents are most impressive and are available as pdf's [1]Cheers!--JimmyButler (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Apparently she is also an expert on Crayfish [2] - She is probably one of the million Marine Biology Majors out of UNC-Wilmington that couldn't get a job in field so they became an environmental educator --JimmyButler (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your note Jimmy. Could you possibly give me a link that would clarify this? NC Envirothon is a non-governmental non-profit company, and that "North Carolina Wild" page is situated on their website. How can I confirm that "North Carolina Wild" documents are developed by North Carolina Wildlife Commission, a government agency? The only site I can find for "North Carolina Wild" is an on-line store. I can't find "North Carolina Wild" on the NC wildlife.org site. There seems to be only "North Carolina Wildlife", not "North Carolina Wild" a sort of sound-alike. I expect you are a lot more familiar with all this than I am, so maybe you can point me in the right direction. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the name changed between 1997 and now? Invertzoo (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The North Carolina Wildlife Commission produced a series of pamphlets entitled NC Wild providing a synopsis of various animals in North Carolina.  They are somewhat dated and have since been replaced with more upscale documents located as pdf files here: [3]. If you notice at the bottom of the NC Wild Document on the Scotch Bonnet used as a reference under Credits:
Written by Sarah Friday. Illustrated by J.T. Newman. Produced January 1997 by the Division of Conservation Education, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.
Sarah Friday still publishes documents for NC Wildlife commission, note the one on Crayfish which authored. Hope this helped.--JimmyButler (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, I see. Thanks. I did look at the new crayfish profile. I suppose the name of the department changed between between 1997 and now, i.e. it used to be NC Wild and is now NC Wildlife. Invertzoo (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Distribution" section mentions that the shell "occurs."  I know this is nit-picky, and someone better acquainted with shells/general copyediting should probably weigh in, but this seems like strange phrasing.  Strombollii (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Strombollii. Thanks for your comment. I think "occurs in" is a very commonly-used phrase in these kinds of contexts. If you google "species occurs in North Atlantic" you will get, for example, from the Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals: "the northern counterpart occurs in both the North Atlantic and North Pacific". You can also use the phrase "is found in". However I just now rewrote the intro sentence of the Distribution section to add more info and that avoided the necessity of using a phrase like this. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't work out what happened to the archive of talk page messages prior to January 2010. I know there were extensive discussions on here  from the class projects, but the archive page is empty, even though the edit history shows all the messages. Invertzoo (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Please any interested parties, keep an eye on this talk page and the article itself and help work to get this article to pass the GA review. Thank you everyone. Invertzoo (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Could someone with greater skill than myself (basically most people who visit this website) create a disambiguation list for this article and the article on the pepper plant by the same name?    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.144.213.97 (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scotch bonnet (shell)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 15:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, first thoughts

Anyone who can't pronounce "Scotch Bonnet" isn't likely to make sense of the ipa characters, seems pointless to me.
 Done (It helped me.) IPA pronunciation is exactly what Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation) instructs us to do. But the question is whether it is needed. I think both scotch and bonnet are common English words. Yes, both return about 15 million hits by Google. --Ettrig (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 Done I don't like the structure, with lots of (mostly) one paragraph main headings. Why are "Snail's characteristics" and "Shell's development" not part of "Description"? Why is "Breeding and birth" not part of "Behavior". If you keep the third and fourth sections in some form, perhaps as lower level headings "Characteristics" and "Shell development" would be better
What is the status of the bibliography? If you have used it, should be under References, if not, under further reading or lose it (recommended since most are incorrectly formatted.
 Done
Images lack alternative text
Alternative text is required in a featured article. I don't think it is required in a good article. --Ettrig (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but it improves access, and is easy to do, so a generally good thing - your call though Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 07:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The text looks reasonable at first glance, more detailed comments soon Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 15:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Tech check no dabs, although checklink gives one link as dead, in practice it's fine
images Appropriately licensed. I'd be inclined to amend the crab image captions so it's clear what the relevance is
 Done
Ref check What's the point of redlinking some authors and not others? Why is there a # before Swain? Odd and inconsistent date style, I'd stick with (2009) etc.
You don't need retrieval dates for online versions of real books and journals. You need a publisher for Mitchell ref
 DoneIf you keep the bibliography, there are formatting issues there, but I await your decision. You shouldn't have items under notes and biblioghraphy/further reading
 Donelead does not fully summarise the article. You have top level headings such as origin of name predators, after death, shell development, snail's characteristics, which do not figure in lead
family Cassidae  not according to taxobox and no link to follow either
 DoneThis shell represents the abundance of Scottish settlers..." I don't understand how
 DoneDescription para 1. I'd describe the shell before discussing the processes that change it. What are the natural processes which imprint the squares and bands? Isn't this just a growth feature. How does a marine animal get bleached by the sun, I wouldn't have though the light would be strong enough under the sea
 Donenew shell materials  What is the shell material? I assume calcium carbonate, but it doesn't say
 Done blue crab and hermit crab are lc in text, caps in caption
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaker42 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 

I made these changes, please check
I'll have another read when you have had a chance to think about the lead section and the structural issues. You should also check the text again for readability, flow and grammatical errors Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 08:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Some notes below are from an editor who is very active in WikiProject Gastropods. My comments are mostly about content, Invertzoo (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

DONE In the intro, you start out by saying this species is in the subfamily Cassinae, as is shown in the taxobox, but then in the next paragraph you refer to the family Cassidae, which is part of an older classification. The new classification is that of Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005) and you will want to use the first citation there as a reference for this 2005 version of the taxonomy.
NOT DONE . In the intro you say that "The Scotch bonnet is the most abundant shell of its American family", this needs to be expressed as "the most common species in this subfamily in North America", or something similar, because it is not an "American family" but rather a world-wide subfamily.
NOT DONE In the intro, the second paragraph, all of it (except for that one sentence) is actually about the subfamily Cassinae rather than this species. That info needs to go into the article Cassinae and does not really belong in this article. The second paragraph of the intro should be a very condensed mention of the other info that is in this article.

DONE The hermit crab image is of a species that lives in Alaska, not the tropical Atlantic! This should at least be noted in the caption. There are numerous different species of hermit crabs all over the world, not just one species.
More notes to come. Best wishes and good luck with this, Invertzoo (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I have many more points to make about numerous errors in the text, but I am waiting to see that some of the previous points are addressed before I add more suggestions. Invertzoo (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
A note to the team of editors from Croatan High School: If you have any difficulties understanding the biology etc of this subject, remember you have some snail experts on call here! Wikipedia is a collaboration, and that means you can ask us for help with things you do not understand. We are ready to help you! You can leave any questions either on the talk page at WikiProject Gastropods here [4] or ask individual WikiProject editors such as myself on my talk page or User:Snek01 on his talk page. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Warning: A great deal of work needs to be done to this article before it can be considered to have reached Good Article status. The "information" in the text is currently quite garbled in many of the sections. It is apparent that some of the writers simply did not understand the information they were attempting to rewrite from the sources they used. I know it is daunting to make your  way through all of the reviewers' suggestions here, as there are quite a lot of them, but you can start anywhere and respond to the reviewer's points one by one. It is considered impolite to just leave the reviewers hanging without any responses after they have put in work and time on reviewing the article.

Notes (review) by --Snek01 (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

DONE Explain distribution: does it live in Mexico? etc. The image of distribution shows line, (it is even no coastal line). The image should show an area.
There are not mentioned parasites of this species. [5]
==The Scotch bonnet referred to in the link that is mentioned here is in fact Scotch Bonnet Island, an island in Lake Erie. It has nothing to do whatsoever with the species semicassis granulata 

 (not done yet) There is a standard to have apertural view of the shell of gastropod articles on wikipedia. (Other standard views of the gastropod shell would be fine.)
DONE There is inadequate comparison with garden snail. There are 60 000 species of gastropods and all could be similar to garden snail. This similarity is the same as lion is similar to cow.
NOT DONE Add what specific name granulata mean.
CORRECTED BY A REVIEWER "According to a study done by the Brazilian Journal of Biology..." Study is not done by a journal but by a researcher.
DONE There can be separate section "Feeding habits". There should be explained why they are "attracted by its abundant food".
Some informations from "General references" could be used as inline references, for example these two: Freire 1992 and D'Asaro 1969.
The sentence "The snail grows around a pillar inside the shell called the columella that is protected by a wall." is strange and it is not species specific. There can be only mentioned in "Shell description" that columella exist. --Snek01 (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Tips for images: capsules of eggs; radula; damage at its prey. --Snek01 (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion:
Maybe the Good Article Kerry slug has inspiration for the editors of this article. --Ettrig (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Kerry slug article is improved up above GA: It is sort of half way between GA and FA status. Maybe the Socorro springsnail article might be helpful, that one is right at GA status. Invertzoo (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Taxonomy
There are difficulties in the taxonomy. Additional taxonomically reliable sources are needed. For example a relatively new journal article can perhaps be found? The current taxonomy in the article is using the name Semicassis granulata based on "Malacolog Version 4.1.1." There is (probably?) a need to avoid sources from the Mediterranean (like this http://doris.ffessm.fr/fiche2.asp?fiche_numero=682) There is not enough infomation about genetics Tonnoidea on NCBI. So it is also necessary to write a stub article Semicassis undulata and add to this one the differences between these two species. Note that the actual images File:Semicassis granulata.jpg and File:Semicassis granulata 2.jpg (both uploaded by myself) are probably from the Mediterranean, and thus may be incorrect!--Snek01 (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
More
I notice that the book and journal references seem to give the pages for the whole document. While that may be acceptable for a short journal article on the specific topic, the point is to make your sources checkable, so you need to give the relevant page numbers, not the length of the publication. Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 07:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Following talk page discussion let's summarise. I accept that the textual issues have largely been addressed. I'm not too bothered about the details of taxonomy at GA, and you don't have to write a stub for the red link. However, the issues with the references haven't been sorted, still lacking actual page numbers, ref 16 is completely inadequate, as is the sixth EL. Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 07:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As a specialist from WikiProject Gastropods, I feel that the article still needs a lot more work factually, although the quality of the prose has been improved. 

DONE. Firstly the common name of the shell is rendered with and without capitals more or less at random throughout the article. This must be standardized and each occurrence checked carefully!
JUST REMOVED, NOT SOLVED IN ANY OTHER WAY. In the intro I think it is quite incorrect to say that the Scotch bonnet "has become extremely rare". Citation needed! This is a snail that lives offshore, not in the intertidal zone, and thus the shell will only rarely be found on the beach. No doubt the shell will be found more often after big storms with onshore winds. That does not however mean the the species "has become rare". It may still be quite common at 200 feet depth. And even if the species did become "rarer" in North Carolina this might mean almost nothing in terms of the species overall distribution. This article is after all about the species, not simply about its occurrence in North Carolina. I don't think we need the sentence "For the Tarheel Beachcomber, the Scotch Bonnet and its shell has become a treasure." if you do want to talk specifically about this species in North Carolina, that information can be in a separate subsection under Distribution, however you will need citations for the points you make.
DONE. The section on Shell description is significantly flawed, especially the second paragraph. In the first paragraph, whorls cannot be called "sections", that is quite misleading.
DONE. As for the second paragraph, the info about the "chalky white appearance" is incoherent. It is not ascribed to a source and appears to be talking about the appearance of long-dead shells, not the shell in the live animal. I have no idea what the sentence "Once dissolved...." is supposed to mean.
NOW THIS INFO IS DUPLICATED. The info about size needs to be joined with the first mention of size, at the beginning of that whole section.
DONE . Nothing has been done about the distribution map, which still shows only a red line instead of a shaded area. It completely fails to indicate that the species occurs in the Gulf of Mexico and throughout the Caribbean coast of Central America. As it currently stands the map is more misleading than helpful.
As a general point, it is not up to the students to decide that each point is "Done", that is to say, that each individual point raised by a reviewer has been adequately addressed. Whether or not the points have been corrected sufficiently is for the reviewers to decide.
Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, enough is enough
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: