Talk:Robsonella huttoni

My COI statement

I wrote the CephRef page for this species, which I have added as an external link. As it covers similar content, my writing may be similar to that I have on CephRef, but I will try to make reword it to be original.

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: AxonsArachnida (talk · contribs) 09:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jonathanischoice (talk · contribs) 22:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Review assessment table

Hi, I'll review this over the weekend, using this table. — Jon (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll start going through this tomorrow. AxonsArachnida (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jonathanischoice Thanks for your comments, I've gone through and replied to them all :) AxonsArachnida (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@AxonsArachnida - all good, great work on a well composed article! — Jon (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See comments.  Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	OK
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Good referencing used throughout.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Satisfactory references used.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Author also contributed summarising material to the CephRef article used as a reference, but it cites the same sources and is uncontroversial.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The Copyvios report scores 14.5% and the few matches are not concerning.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good coverage; see comments.  Done
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	OK
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	OK
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No concerns in the edit history or talk page.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Good images used.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	OK
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Comments

Lead

• (Criterion 1a) Need to introduce William Benham, Frederick Hutton, and Steve O'Shea, e.g. "the New Zealand marine biologist Steve O'Shea"; it usually suffices to grab the short description or first sentence from their articles.
  • Added general info about these people.
• "They live in tidal and subtidal reefs from depths of 0 to 386 metres" could be written as "to depths of 386 metres" - including 0 in a depth range seems somehow jarring (see also below, in Distribution section).
  • Reworded.

Taxonomy and etymology

• "They are sometimes commonly referred to as" — is it sometimes, or commonly?
  • Fixed.

Phylogeny

• (Criterion 3a) It might be interesting to describe a bit more why was the species transferred to the Robsonella genus; are there outward features that it shares with other Robsonella spp.?
  • I've added a little bit about this. The authors didn't go into specifics, just said it was the skin and radula etc etc, so I've had to be a bit general about this.

Description

• "The head is strong developed" — should this be "strongly developed"?
  • Fixed.
• "The larvae have large eyes and semitransparent in colour" — "are semitransparent"
  • Fixed.
• The link to Kölliker's organ is redlinked; perhaps describe what it is/does.
  • Gave a brief description of what it is. I can't describe what it doesnt since the function isn't understood (probably movement in my opinion).
• Adjust the {{convert}} significant digit parameters so that "roughly 3mm (0.118 in) long and 1.55mm (0.061 in) in width" reads as 0.12 in or even 0.1 in (or even use |frac=16 to give values to the nearest 16th of an inch, i.e. ⅛ and ¹⁄₁₆ inch respectively, since fractions of inches are what folks stuck in backwards parts of the world still using inches Fahrenheit and football fields as units are familiar with; or perhaps even omit inch conversions altogether, since this is a science article and it's the 21st century already; see MOS:CVT which says, "in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so"). In any case, "0.118 in" is too precise given its "roughly 3mm" input.
  • I went with omitting inches altogether.
• (Criterion 3a) describe what chromatophores are, and possibly what they are used for (although camouflage may come under behaviour?)
  • I added a brief description of chromatophores. There's nothing published on their exact function in R. huttoni. In octopus it can be used for various reasons, not neccessarily camouflage, so I've opted not to suggest one. As a side note, the photo I used is part of a larger set that shows the same individual changing from green-blue to pale to almost greenish yellow. https://inaturalist.nz/observations/172963514

Distribution and habitat

• "they are only known from the Tasmania and southern Australia" — remove "the"
  • Fixed.
• "occurring from 0–386 metres in depth" — maybe "occurring from the surface to as deep as 386 metres" unless this is a standard way to express this kind of measurement? Not a biologist, happy to be persuaded.
  • Some marine bio people refer to it that way, others don't. I've changed it to how you suggested as I think that is slightly clearer to average audience.
• "occurring from 0–386 metres in depth" ­— 386 m seems like an oddly precise depth; were none found at 387 metres, or is it the result of a sample average (should/could it be rounded)?
  • 386m is the deepest record of this species. Honestly it probably goes a bit deeper than that. I think its best to keep it as it is, as that is the actual known depth distribution.
• "occurring from 0–386 metres in depth" — Having just encouraged dropping inch conversions, are we not converting depths? If we keep inches in, then we probably ought to provide freedom units (feet, fathoms) for depths.
  • Removed inches, so I won't add feet.

Life history

• "The females have been observed laying eggs all year round, but most often laid during October to March" — "but eggs are most often"
  • Fixed.
• Comma after "After hatching"
  • Fixed.
• "unlike many other Octopus" — "octopus" should be lower case
  • Fixed.
• "near shore populations had older individuals whereas" — hyphenate "near-shore", comma after "individuals"
  • Fixed.

Conservation status

• "temperatures of over 23 °C" — perhaps "temperatures above 23 °C"
  • Fixed.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.