Talk:Theodoxus fluviatilis

message: Very thorough with good refs, but I think that a map would be much more informative and simply look a lot better, than listing the countries. I believe there are people here that can help make such a map, unfortunately I am not one of them. Mattximus (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no sufficient map available yet. Map on the IUCN Red list is not up to date (Iran, ...), not precise (include areas, where it does not live: Alps, Czech Republic), errorenous (Norway). But when this map will be updated according to newer methods, that are standard on the IUCN, we will probably use that map. --Snek01 (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution 

message: I think, that if the following details will be resolved that article could be submitted as Featured article nominee:
* This reference should be verified and re-added to the article: "ICZN (1955). Opinion 335. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature".
* Occurrence in Ukraine could be clarified a bit (references are in Russian and Ukrainian language).
* Few more details about Prehistoric biogeography would be good.
* Photo of live egg capsules would be great.
* Image of sperm and some info from "Retzius G. (1904-1921). Biologische Untersuchungen 13." would be great. But I have no fulltext of this work, although it is a public domain work.
* There is possibility that few more records about predators exist.
--Snek01 (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd like to suggest a few improvements as well. I strongly believe it won't be promoted unless the following problems are dealt with:
* Each and every synonym in the taxobox needs a citation to its original description.
* The Taxonomy section needs an expansion. The species was originally described as Nerita fluviatilis. When was it recombined with Neritina? And how about Theodoxus? Who did those recombinations? Why did they? 
* The "Cladogram" section could (or should) be renamed "phylogeny", and Bunje & Lindberg's study should be explained more thoroughly. For instance, what is that cladogram based on? Is it morphological data, molecular data or both? Is it a consensus tree? Is it part of a larger tree? Which groups did the study include? Are there other studies and other hypotheses?
* Each and every researcher name cited in the main text (e.g., Anistratenko,  Peters and Traunspurger, and so on) should have a brief introduction as to who they are, and where they come from. See for instance what I wrote about Peter Glöer in the Prehistoric biogeography section.
* A distribution map is essential. I know it's an enormous, disjunct range, but reviewers can and will ask for a map.
* Description section needs to be reorganized. Figures are scattered, not always evenly sized and pop up in the middle of the text, pretty much out of nowhere. Some could be merged into a larger plate. I suggest doing this for the anatomical drawings (except for the radula) and the operculum related pictures. Also, the five-view shell picture could be moved into the taxobox, right below the live specimen figure. I believe this wouldn't a problem, and would likely help in reducing the crowd in the Description section.
* References ought to be completely and meticulously standardized. No extra commas, no extra breaks and spaces, same name citation format, and so on. Also, each and every link must be verified. Dead links are not allowed, External links included.
* Given it is a very well studied species, there must be some info on human use. If so, most or all of it should be included.
* Speaking of missing literature, FAs are expected to include all of the published literature regarding the subject at hand. I mean ALL of it indeed. This is particularly hard for extensively studied species such as Lobatus gigas, and this may be the case here. We should consider that we may not be able to obtain every article published on T. fluviatilis so far.
* Writing needs major improvement. It has to be top notch. People from the Writers guild could help us out, but only after most of the content is already there.
This is an initial list of problems. We can't even think of submitting this as it is. The FA review process is HARD. And I mean it. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forward to Featured article