Talk:Scallop

A fact from Scallop appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 28 August 2011.

This article contains a translation of Scallop from en.wikipedia.

I do love me some scallops, but this is not giving me much of an appetite yet.

• More than 20 red links
• Some terms overlinked "pecten" and "byssus" are two that I noticed. Double check please.
• I like the symbolism/design section. Interesting. Was leaving out this intentional?
  • I honestly hadn't thought of it. Not mentioned in enwp's article, afaik. Yottie ^=talk= 19:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
• These words should all be simplified if possible and linked otherwise. Some are linked but can be simpler, such as "flora" and "marine": anatomy, cuisine, flora, intact, marine, shrine, decrease, knight
  • Not sure about marine, but it is linked. Anatomy is a section, and can't be linked, and I can't think of another name. Suggestions? cuisine is linked (red links, that will be created) others were removed, linked or changed. Yottie ^=talk= 19:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I like it, but it still has a ways to go... Gotanda (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your comments. I will see what I can do. Yottie ^=talk= 08:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article is really neat, and I find it interesting and enjoyable to read. I think it's almost ready for GA, but perhaps a few things attended to would improve it even more:

• "...It is as if mirrors formed the inside of the eye." <- this sounds rather strange, though maybe it's just me. The "as if" and "formed" don't match, as present and past forms don't come in the same sentence.
  • I believe the sentence is correct, because the if implies a condition. You use the past participle usually (e.g. If I did this well I could win... - and not if I do this well I could win). Yottie ^=talk= 08:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
• "This means, if you looked into the pupil of one of these eyes, you would see the same image that the organism would see." <- would there be a different way to explain this, without using the word "you"? :)
  • I will try. Yottie ^=talk= 08:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• "dredges" should be linked, though there isn't an article for it yet.
  • It is linked the first time it is used. Yottie ^=talk= 08:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
• link "badge".

• It would be nice if some of the sections were a little more expanded, such as "Royal Dutch Shell".
  • I will try, and also add a For main article template or something. Yottie ^=talk= 08:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

The references all look in good shape, and it's overall well written. :) I hope this review was of any help. ♥ingly, Bella ^{tête-à-tête} 01:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the comments! Yottie ^=talk= 08:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• What do the percentage numbers in the brackets mean? 95% of the shell is white, or 95 percent of the found shells/existent shells are white? This needs clarification.
  • Clarified. Yottie ^=talk= 11:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
• The inside of their shells has a scar in the middle. - Shells and has? Sounds a bit weird.
  • Fixed. Yottie ^=talk= 11:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
• attaches is not simple.
  • Linked. Yottie ^=talk= 11:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
• You can ... is not very encyclopaedic.
  • Changed to one can. Still not perfect, but avoids the usage of passive voice. Yottie ^=talk= 11:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've reviewed this not until the reproductive cycle section. The rest will be done at some point later. One thing I will never understand is the usage of the same ref several times (means Sentence.[ref1] Sentence.[ref1] Sentence.[ref1]...). It would in my opinion be enough to only use it once at the last sentence referring to the three sentences before. Poke me when you are done and I will take a look at the rest of the article. -Barras (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

People always seem to get told:this sentence isn't referenced if it isn't specifically reffed. They don't seem to think that a single ref at the end of the 33 or more sentences is enough. I don't really have a problem with either system. Yottie ^=talk= 11:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• In the lead you used the sig for percentage, later you used the word. Be consistent.
  • Fixed
• FAO - Don't use abbreviations when they aren't introduced earlier in the article.
  • Done.
• has been closed - passive voice.
  • Suggestions?
    • Not really. It is not the most important thing anyway. -Barras (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
• Research funded by the industry is currently being conducted to study harvesting patterns. - passive voice.
  • fixed.
• Forest and Bird list scallops - is there an "s" missing on list?
  • Needs to be checked on MoS (sometimes, both singular and plural can be used for some things.)
• sustainable is not simple.
  • Linked.
• spat attach is not simple.
  • Linked.
• predator is not simple.
  • It is linked the first time it is used.
    • OK, must have missed that. -Barras (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
• abundant is not simple.
  • Linked.
• hotategai (帆立貝, 海扇) is that Japanese or Chinese or something totally different? Same follows a few times after this. I think there is a template or so.
  • Japanese. Will look for a template.
• For example, you can see it the "you" is not encyclopaedic.
  • Fixed.
• Over 45 communes of France isn't there an exact number for this. It should somehow be countable.
  • Not always easy to count due to the number of communes (36,800)
    • OK then. -Barras (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
• References should probably be made to appear in 2 columns. The two should have their own section (Further readings)
  • Not sure exactly what you meant, but I think (I hope) I've done it right.
    • Yep, you got it correctly. -Barras (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
• The three last subsections all have only one sentence, this looks a bit awkward. Would be good if this could be expanded or fixed otherwise.

I think that's all. Quite good work. -Barras (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Most issues have been fixed. A couple left. Yottie ^=talk= 16:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• "There are more than 300 types of scallop.[3]" Can we merge this with another para please? I don't think having one sentence paragraphs is a good idea.
• Link words the first time you use them, eg. oyster.
• "Their shell shape is quite regular." Explain or link regular
• The entry for resolve doesn't exist in Wiktionary. I don't like red-linked Wiktionary links, they are basically useless. Please create the Wikt entry (I'll see if I can do this myself) or simplify the word.
• "It is as if mirrors formed the inside of the eye." <-- This sentence doesn't make much sense to me at least.
• Link pupil
• Link detect
• "Next, the cilia on the structure moves the food to the mouth." <--- On what structure?
• The latter part of the Food and Digestion section needs more references
• "cement" as a verb may not be simple enough for our readers.
• "This is also a defensive technique." <--- Simplify?
• "The scallop family is unusual" <--- Sounds a bit POV?
• Protoandrous must be linked, definitely not simple
• Any reason for spermatozoa being starting with a capital?
• Link fertilized to fertilization
• "The immature scallop hatches after a few weeks. " <--- What immature scallop?
• Add to list of complex words: drift
• "They usually attach by means of byssal threads. " <--- Attach to what?
• Grit is another non-existent entry linked to in the article
• Dredge needs a link
• Sustainability isn't really a simple header
• Fund as a verb may not be simple
• The As food section has a huge number of red links
• Link apostle, pagan, Compostela, pilgrimage

Well, the article looks good, but it's main problems are the red links and the non-existent Wiktionary entry. I'll see if I can improve the article as I can fix some of these myself. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Fixed some of them, but it's best to check once. Also, note that the number of disambiguation pages linked to in the article is quite high. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Further comments: Science News gives me a 404 error. Also, format the Other websites section using {{cite web}} please. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I simplified and reorganized this section.

• "Reproductive cycle" to "Life cycle" as a more accurate heading. Age/lifespan information is not exactly reproduction.
• Simplified some of the reproductive system info and removed unclear info. For example dioecious linked to plant sexuality. Some of the parenthetical explanations worked just fine and were simpler, accurate descriptions, so I moved them into the text directly.
• Reorganized from general to specific. Age, interesting reproductive system, results of reproduction.

Hope those are fine. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

This page is deficient in its biology. The introduction lacks substance, and has 'nice-to-know' trivia instead of substantial biology. Colour of shells? No case is made for its significance. Food source? Correct, but could be left to a later section. Meaning of the word: OK, but trivial.

This is not entirely the proposer's fault. The page was taken over from enWP, and it is one of their poorest biology articles. They rate it as a 'C', and I think that flatters it.

Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution, and there's not a word of that in the page. Since it's being suggested as a good article, I think it fails on this point alone. Scallops are an example of the huge changes which took place on the Mesozoic continental shelf sea-floor as crabs and starfish eat their way through the bivalves of the day. None of that is mentioned on the rotten enWP page, so naturally it doesn't appear here. We get a lead paragraph full of trivia, and no substance.

If scallops are Pectinidae pure and simple, then why do you have another page on the Pectinidae? If scallops are not the whole Pectinidae, then you have got some of the details wrong, such as the 'scallops' which attach to each other or to rocks. And incidentally, spelled one of the biological names incorrectly.

On details again: it's not necessary to have four or five successive sentences, each repeating the same reference. Once at the end of paragraph or topic is enough. The number of references is adequate, but the range of references is not nearly wide enough. The article lacks adequate references for the pure biology, as opposed to the biology of scallops as a food source.

It's an average article, not a good one. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Now I don't quite agree with myself. It seems obviously above average, but its main weakness is its concentration on trivia, as indicated. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, since Pectinidae are scallops, and scallops are Pectinidae, I have merged them and left a redirect on Pectinidae. The terms are synonymous, and statements like "Some Pectinidae are scallops" and "Scallops are in the Pectinidae" were misleading. I've also written some new stuff. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply