Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Octopus/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2017 [1].

Octopus[edit]

Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap, Cwmhiraeth and LittleJerry (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

This article is about the octopus, one of the most intelligent invertebrates, rivaled only by other cephalopods. The article was expanded, improved on, and passed a GA review. We feel it is ready for FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments[edit]

Drive by Comment - It looks like the taxonomy list is a bit out of alignment. For example Suborder Cirrina is at the 3rd level of indentation and Suborder Incirrina is at the second level. Shouldn't all suborders be aligned, all families be aligned, etc? It's mostly aligned just Cirrina. Mattximus (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I aligned the suborders. The families of the two suborders can't be align as one order is divided into superfamilies. LittleJerry (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siuenti says[edit]

  • I'm not happy that the article states blankly "is a cephalopod mollusc of the order Octopoda." without explaining what "cephalopod" means. I think other examples of cephalapods would help (squid, nautiluses). Also it would be good to work in soft-bodied (Coleoidea) near the top because that characteristic is high-level than octopodae. Also try to avoid WP:consecutive blue links Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that's much better IMO. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote that the "arms" are not "tentacles" on first mention please. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LittleJerry: do it again please, maybe after "centre point of the arms" Siuenti (씨유엔티) 12:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because later it says " known as arms (mistakenly called tentacles)". It seems like 'The modern convention however, is to speak of appendages as "tentacles" when they have relatively thin "peduncles" or "stalks" with "clubs" at their tips'. (from tentacle) so they might be referred to as "tentacles" but don't match this strict definition. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Made further changes. LittleJerry (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems it was depicted more like an octopus. LittleJerry (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you feel like explaining the difference between octopodes and squidopodes somewhere? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So actually the arm/tentacle thing is the primary difference? Squid have "specialised feeding tentacles" and octopies don't? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's the difference that's mentioned in the literature I've come across. LittleJerry (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I still have some quibbles but overall it's a good candidate. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 16:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the thing I'd like best is to go through the whole thing, adding "as with other cephalopods" and linking to "X in cephalopods" where appropriate, I keep wondering whether things are specific to octopuses or not. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 14:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed all the "as with other cephalopods". Much of what is true about octopuses is true about other cephalopods. We can't keep adding in this phrase to every section as it is tiresome and redundant. LittleJerry (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about "unlike other cephalopods" then? they can't both be redundant... 212.250.152.37 (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Major differences between octopuses and other cephalopods is already noted in taxonomy. That's as far as I can go. LittleJerry (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also there are two bits about chromophores or something, they need to be harmonized. And I think there's a ; that should be colon in one of them. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 14:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Chiswick Chap would probably be better for this. LittleJerry (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John[edit]

Great article!

  • Pronunciation. (/ˈɒktəpʊs/ or ~/pəs/) seems like the wrong order. Cambridge, Macmillan, and Oxford seem to favour ~/pəs/ although the Beatles pronounced it /ˈɒktəpʊs/. Could these be swapped?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The skin consists of a thin outer epidermis overlying a connective tissue dermis. The epidermis contains mucous cells and sensory cells and the dermis consists largely of collagen fibres and various chromatic organs; chromatophores, leucophores, iridophores, reflector cells and photophores. says the same thing twice. There is a bit too much redundancy in general; we get the coconut shells and the mortality experiment twice each and there are (I think) a few things like that.
Fixed. The coconut shell mention is relevant to both locomotion and intelligence. I removed the part in locomotion about it being used for shelter since it is not relevant there. LittleJerry (talk)
I also slit information on the ink. Anat&Phys talks about its contents while defense mentions its effects. LittleJerry (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moved information on mimicry to defense. The major redundancies should be fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was very overlinked and there is likely some more work to be done in honing links to the really useful ones.
Did some. LittleJerry (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did some more, seems to be about right now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Octopuses may be preyed on by fishes, seabirds, pinnipeds and cetaceans; I think humans' role should be mentioned if it is a significant one which I suspect it is.
The source doesn't mention humans as predators. Anyway, we usually don't mention humans as predators in animal article expect in relation to conservation, hunting, ect. The consumption of octopuses is mentioned. LittleJerry (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely happy with this, but let me think about it. Regardless of what other articles do, human predation should be mentioned in these terms if it is important, and we imply it is by discussing the role in cuisine. Let me think about it some more.--John (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other zoologists thought it a spermatophore; the German zoologist Heinrich Müller believed it was designed to detach during copulation. "Designed" is rather jarring here. Do we need it?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is "adapted" better? What language does the source use? --John (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It quotes Muller. LittleJerry (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably a few more items. Nothing that can't be fixed. --John (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does cleavage is superficial mean? --John (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cwmhiraeth would be better for this. LittleJerry (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm less worried about this now that I have found and wikilinked the cleavage (embryo) article. It should ideally still be explained for the lay reader if it is important enough to mention. --John (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Better? LittleJerry (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Better. --John (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure this makes sense. Octopuses generally avoid humans, but attacks have occasionally been verified. For example, an 2.4-metre (8 ft) Pacific octopus, said to be nearly perfectly camouflaged, "lunged" at a diver and "wrangled" over his camera before it let go. It seems rather lame as "attacks" go. Is there a better example? Or is this example individually notable so as to need recorded? --John (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that real attacks do exist but have this rather tame character, very different from the overdramatised versions in film and fiction. Seems well worth having. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Does the source refer to it as an "attack"? Maybe "incident" is fairer? --John (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. It uses the word "ambush" which is a type of attack, e.g. the cougar is an ambush predator. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does, but I don't like the use of this low-quality source to support either "attack" or "ambush" on a biology article. --John (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, incident it is then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does Several questionable size records would suggest the giant Pacific octopus is the largest of all known octopus species by a considerable margin... mean? If they are questionable, why are we referring to them? In a philosophical sense, all information is questionable. Can we clarify this? --John (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Said "Much larger sizes ... have been claimed": the situation is that reliable sources report a history of somewhat doubtful claims. Hope this wording is satisfactory! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check these edits. I am almost finished. I'd be ready to support after one more pass. --John (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These seem entirely good to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I now support on prose, apparent completeness, sourcing and images. It's been a pleasure to work with such a collegial team. Thanks for working on this important article and making it so good.--John (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a number missing here. Also, a more modern source would be good. "Octopus fisheries exist around the world with total catches varying between 245,320 and 322,99 metric tons from 1986–1995." --John (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Source says 322,999 mt. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Tremoctopus_violaceus5.jpg needs a US PD tag, and what is the author's date of death?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with File:Octopus_vulgaris_Merculiano.jpg
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:AMI_-_Oktopusvase.jpg: should include an explicit tag for the vase itself
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Colossal_octopus_by_Pierre_Denys_de_Montfort.jpg needs a US PD tag.
PD-US. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same with File:Tako_to_ama_(detail).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have since added a new image which was uploaded by the author. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine's Sunbird's support comments[edit]

Resolved

Always good to see the higher level taxa being taken on. Some comments:

Many thanks!
  • , after which he goes into a decline. a touch euphemistic. after which he dies?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm reasonably familiar with behavioural language and I'm uncertain what and behaviourally diverse " means
This was discussed at the GA review. It refers to their ability to mimic other animals, problem solving ect. LittleJerry (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is locomotion divided between the first and third paragraphs of the lead?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to ask why global distribution and habita wasn't covered in the main article but instead I'll ask why it doesn't have its own section but is instead crammed into the front of behaviour and ecology. I'd separate.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On distribution, are there any patterns in distribution? (More diverse in the tropics, or in the abyssal plain?)
Sources don't say but presumably its like other groups of animals. More diversity at coral reefs and tropical areas, ect. LittleJerry (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the octopus body is made of soft material Material? Maybe tissue?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even the larger species can squeeze through any opening close to 2.5 cm (1 in) in diameter.[ I think it would be better to introduce the idea that they can do this before showing how impressively they can do it. This allows octopuses extreme flexibility and the ability to squeeze through tiny gaps; even the larger...
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the section on ink sacs separate the senses and nervous system, surely those two should be linked or possibly a single section?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do some more reading tomorrow. Cheers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The respiration system could be clearer about why various states increase or decrease the percentage the amount of respiration through the skin
Clarified. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor point but it makes more sense to have ingestion before excretion
Done, always nice to have a sense of, er, progress, in the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • to vary from species to species, being present in O. aegina but absent in O. vulgaris. I think a for example is needed before introducing examples here
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sense of touch is touched (badoom) on paragraph one and three of the senses section. I can see why, but maybe they could be merged?
Moved the offending sentence into the touch paragraph. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, long day. Will finish soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second wind!
  • In most species, fertilisation occurs in the mantle cavity feels like it would sit better in the section on sex itself
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The young paralarvae are planktonic for a while, feeding on copepods, arthropod larvae and other zooplankton. They then sink to the seabed to continue their development; some deep sea species do not have a planktonic stage.[56] Maybe this instead. Most young paralarvae are planktonic for a while, but some deep sea species do not have a planktonic stage. Planktonic young feed on copepods, arthropod larvae and other zooplankton. They then sink to the seabed to continue their development or something like that
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • adopted by the argonaut. I think paper nautilus is a more commonly known name and should be used here as well
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Octopuses are not territorial and may leave an area in search of food. an area? What area? Maybe they travel widely to feed, or are nomadic?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other creatures often share the den with the octopus, either because they have arrived as scavengers, or because they have survived capture. They include fish, crabs, molluscs and echinoderms Maybe move the examples into the first sentence after other creatures
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major items in the diet of the giant Pacific octopus include bivalve molluscs such as the cockle Clinocardium nuttallii, clams and scallops, and crustaceans such as crabs and spider crabs. why does this article about the whole group suddenly narrow down to a single species?
Because the behaviour of so few species of octopus have been studied in detail. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prey likely to be rejected include moon snails, is this referring to the group or just the giant species again?
Still the giant species. Clarified. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The predation line seems a bit thin. If there's not more to say, maybe move it to the defence section and rename that section parasites and disease.
A good suggestion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the relationship with humans needs a bit more structure. Maybe general (danger and legal) cultural (history, myth, literature, erotica and metaphor), economic (food, captivity and science).
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also needs a prune. Try and find concepts that octopuses represent (gods, danger etc) and find examples to illustrate them, rather than just listing every occurrence of octopuses in human society.
Done. Incidentally, I removed the section on metaphor but an uninvolved editor has just added it back. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While the relationship with humans section needed reorganization, I don't think the way it was done was an improvement. The new "dangerous sea-monster" section mixes monster stories, creation myths, and scientific information about actual danger to humans. The important "metaphor" section was removed entirely (I have re-added it). My suggestion would be to split an "in culture" level 2 section off of "relationship with humans" to contain myths, stories, symbol, and erotic fantasy. "Relationship with humans" would retain danger to humans, food, and science and technology. I will do this myself when I get off work if there are no objections. A2soup (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly I now need to wait for you and Sabine's Sunbird to agree on the structure the section is to have. I will do my best to implement whatever you agree. However, I have added a section heading 'As an actual danger' to separate myth from science (the text remains unchanged). I note in passing that food, science and other human interactions are all part of our culture. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't mean to be a bother. Don't feel like you need to be the one to implement my suggestions - I can do it myself, followed by you and Sunbird revising or rejecting it (by comment here or by edit) per the normal wiki process. A2soup (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's very kind of you, but since we're here we'll have to proceed by consensus now. If you mean that (like me) you'll now accept whatever Sunbird proposes, then obviously that makes consensus easy. I imagine they'll take your suggestions into account. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I made some chances. I hope nobody minds. LittleJerry (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like the changes - I think the organization is good now, thanks! I will add a (cited) sentence or two to the symbol paragraph if I can find the time. A2soup (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The structure is much better now. I have one final point below but from my perspective this issue is resolved. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • he supposed attack on a Staten Island ferry in New York, leading to the loss of the ferry and commemorated by a bronze sculpture, never occurred, nor was there any such ferry disaster This is odd and trivia-ish and I'd remove it. If its kept then some context is badly needed.
Gone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Octopuses were often depicted in the art of the Moche people of ancient Peru (100 – 700 AD), who worshipped the sea and its animals.[117] I am fairly sure I've seen this line in lots of other animal articles. So what?
Gone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get rid of the see also.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's me. Thanks for being responsive to my other points, should be good to go when this is done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, one final section that needs tightening - As food:
    • I don't like the title. Maybe fisheries or economic importance
    • They are a common food in Mediterranean and Asian sea areas Asian sea areas? Maybe just around the Mediterranean and in Asia.
    • The intro of this section focuses on their foodstuff role - you need to briefly touch on their fisheries, how they are caught (which I was curious about and then interested when I learnt), economic importance (for jobs and subsistence) and fisheries management.
All done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What units are the numbers for fisheries? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay that should be it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (conditional on one tiny fix noted above about fisheries). Thanks for working on a high level taxa and being responsive to feedback. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sabine's Sunbird: Can you elaborate on why you don't like "as food" as a section title and why you think "fisheries" or "economic importance" is better? The section is not just about fishing, it is about catching and eating octopuses. The unifying theme is octopuses as a food for humans, which comprises both fishing and culinary aspects. IMO, your suggested titles only cover the first of these and do not tell the reader that the section also covers octopus dishes. A2soup (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As food doesn't really cover fisheries or economic importance. The economic, ecological and logistical background of any natural foodstuff is separate from their culinary nature. To avoid getting bogged down I didn't insist on it but I would prefer the section touched on overfishing, economic size and jobs, and so on. Also - as food only really works as a title if you start with Relationship with humans - as food. If you insist on keeping it then Octopuses as food would read better. Although Cuisine and fisheries is better than that. Or something else. I don't really care, if you really prefer as food then switch it back. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to have been resolved by the choice of 'Fisheries and cuisine'. Good as any. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber (and spot check/source review)[edit]

  • If possible, avoid having all four paras of lead starting with "Octopuses..."
Fixed one of 'em. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that helps Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • one specimen was recorded as 272 kg (600 lb) with an arm span of 9 m (30 ft). - I would clarify how/why this is unsubstantiated.
  • I also don't think you need standalone sentences in this section.
Closed up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd link circulatory system somewhere...
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do all species have inksacs? Be good to know and reference that...
Its mentioned that Cirrate octopuses don't have ink sacs. LittleJerry (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my bad. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did classical folks call them octopuses? Or is it a modern construct (i.e. when were they first called octopuses?) Be good to note in the Etymology and pluralisation section
Yes, it's ancient Greek, linked in that section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was, did they call them that or was it a medieval or later invention of word by joining two ancient Greek words...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's new Latin transcribed from genuine ancient Greek as spoken and written by the ancients, such as Alexander of Tralles, as oktopous or more usually oktapous. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are any species endangered? Are any invasive?
Can't seem to find much on either. I mostly find articles on the "endangered" Pacific Northwest tree octopus, which is a hoax. LittleJerry (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earwigs threw up a result at copyvio check. Hard to tell if it is a mirror but there are a few segments it might be prudent to change.
The YouTube text is certainly copied from here. I'm basically sure that the World Animal Foundation text is too, but copyedited just in case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, all good on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref formatting ok, though could we add some more info to web refs? (FN 136, 137)
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 18 used once, faithful to source (NB: has the material to elaborate on largest Pacific octopus above).
  • FN 46 used once, faithful to source.
  • FN 104 used once, faithful to source.

Happy with spot check. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments[edit]

Ref 13 is dead and a couple of the external links are dead. Also, while not an absolute requirement, I think that FAs should use alt text as they are an example of best practice. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 13 removed; ref 14 covers sentence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2 dead external links removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Supplied alt texts for all the images. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Octopus/archive1&oldid=787366674"