Talk:Voluta ebraea

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Voluta ebraea/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Daniel Cavallari (talk · contribs) 14:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: ZKevinTheCat (talk · contribs) 02:06, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Beginning the GA review. Good luck. — ZKevinTheCat

Review

This is mostly good, I just have two small concers:

The article mentions "The angle of the spire also differs between the sexes". By how much? Please specify.

Added the angle measurements stated in the reference. The fact that they were missing is odd indeed! I've also added the page number. Please verify! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The taxonomy and etymology section does not really cover everything. For one, only the species etymology is discussed, and the article contains something along the lines of: "The specific name comes directly from the Latin word ebraea, the nominative feminine form of ebraeus, meaning Hebrew, hence the common name, hebrew volute." This sentence is confusing; did the common name derive from the scientific one, or the other way around? This is unclear. Also, the taxonomy of it not really mentioned beyond just the scientific name. Try to include something about its genus, family, etc.

I've added brief information on the family and genus, along with references, to provide a bit more context. I’ve also rewritten the section discussing the Hebrew etymology and the associated speculations. Hopefully it's clearer and more concise now! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Other than that, this is a pretty solid article. Good work. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this nomination, ZKevinTheCat. Looking forward to working through this review with you! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The taxonomy section is a lot better, thanks. I've also made some edits to the lead and taxonomy section to improve the flow a little. You can change them if you want; it's your GA.

Unless you have any more comments, I'm ready to pass the article. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I yhink that's it. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 13:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Hebrew volute, Voluta ebraea, spawns by laying egg capsules on fan-shaped green algae thalli?

• Source: https://repositorio.ufc.br/bitstream/riufc/70251/1/2010_art_hmatthewscascon.pdf

"A total of 40 egg capsules of V. ebraea were found attached to the green calcareous alga Udotia occidentalis A.Gepp and E.S. Gepp (Fig. 1 A and B) in the same place that V. ebraea adults were found (1 to 2 meters depth in sea grass beds off Paracurú beach, Ceará state, Brasil)."

http://panamjas.org/pdf_artigos/PANAMJAS_19(1)_41-45.pdf

"This species is known to lay egg capsules only on the calcareous green algae Udotea occidentalis (Fig. 1B), "...

• • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Daniel Cavallari (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC).

• Article is new enough and long enough, recently promoted to GA. I've made a small change in the hook ("Hebrew" is always capitalised). All material is cited to what appear to be reliable sources, and I can see no copyvio or BLP concerns: all images have appropriate licenses. The hook is interesting, though I don't think it fully appears in the article: we have the attachment of V. ebraea capsules to algae, rather than hard substrates like shells, represents a novel ecological observation within the family Volutidae, but I don't see "fan-shaped green algae thalli" anywhere, or indeed in the quotations pulled from the sources here. QPQ needs to be done. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: Actually, this appears to be the nominator's fifth nomination, so he does not require a QPQ. However, it is his last freebie, so his next nomination will need one. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, well spotted -- it does say so in the template. @Daniel Cavallari: we should therefore we good to go once the hook is in the article (and fully sourced). If it's already there and I'm just missing it, could you point me towards it? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist:Thank you! I've just added it to the Life cycle section! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist:, do you still have reservations on this nomination?--Kevmin § 16:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

It still doesn't seem to be stated in the cited source. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

User talk:UndercoverClassicist I believe there's a misunderstanding. The references do not mention that the alga's thallus is fan-shaped; they only state that Voluta ebraea deposits its eggs on the thalli. This doesn't change the fact that they are fan-shaped, which can be visually confirmed by the illustration included in the article. This isn't a violation of the Manual of Style due to original research; it's merely a visual observation. If you still believe this is problematic, I can remove it from the hook, but I think it would lose a considerable part of its appeal to the general public. Nevertheless, it's your call. I'd be fine with any of these options. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure there is one -- I've just had a look through and can find the following:

• This species is known to lay egg capsules only on the calcareous green algae Udotea occidentalis (Fig. 1B), usually one capsule per algae (18.2 – 2.63 mm in diameter)
• Matthews-Cascon et al. (2010) observed 40 egg capsules of V. ebraea attached to the calcareous green algae Udotea occidentalis

However, I can't find any mention of thalli at all. Is "On algae thalli" just another way of writing "on algae"? As you note, the hook isn't strictly in the cited source, so I'd be inclined to rework it into something that is -- perhaps "on a single species of green algae"? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 05:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Arguably, if you examine the figures in both references, particularly fig. 1B in Meirelles (2024), you'll notice what appears to be an egg capsule attached to the thallus of U. occidentalis. While the thallus itself isn’t explicitly mentioned in the text, the structure shown in the figure is, in my view, unmistakably one. That said, I agree it’s wiser to adopt a more cautious approach and stick strictly to what the sources state. In that case, I believe "on the calcareous green algae" would be the safest and most accurate choice. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

In the need to get this nomination moving I would propose this hook-

Alt1 ... that Hebrew volute lay their egg capsules on green algae but not hard surfaces?

@Daniel Cavallari and UndercoverClassicist:, the article MUST follow citation rules, with the hook being cited directly after it appears in the text. Daniel you have admitted that the source text does not use the term talli at all, we need to follow it as what you currently have in the article skirts over the line into WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. I will note the article is also written in very dense language and really should be copy edited to comply with accessibility for a general audience, but it should not be held up for that reasoning.--Kevmin § 19:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm vetoing this one due to time taken, and the internal issues with the article and nomination not being rectified.--Kevmin § 00:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

That’s too bad. I wish I had more time to work on this, but alas... Thank you all for the time and effort you’ve put into reviewing it. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to the original reviewer UndercoverClassicist regarding the above marking for closure. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know that the presidential veto existed at DYK! I would share the judgement that the article itself is, overall, ready for DYK (mindful that this is not the same as saying that the article is perfect, or does not have flaws which I would hope to see corrected), and would think that the hook is eminently fixable in short time. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)