Firstly, this is an interesting and informative article which I'm sure we can bring to a good standard.
There remain a few items which need citations - basically every claim should be cited. I have added some citation needed tags: there may be one or two others.
The table of contents is currently rather a long list with not much structure. Accordingly:
I suggest we group the biology sections under that heading == Biology == and demote the existing headings to level 3 === Distribution and habitat === etc.
I suggest we group the human-facing sections under the heading == Interactions with humans ==, i.e. starting with "Seafood industry". Remember to demote the subsections also.
"Gallery" isn't a great section to have (nor a great name for one). I suggest the images be moved to appropriate places in the text, or dropped. The fossil should go in "Taxonomy and phylogeny"; the others may or may not be useful somewhere - please delete them if not, or adjust their captions to say what the images are actually for, if they are for anything.
Done Removed entire section as lacking purpose. KDS4444 (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
The "see also" link in "Christianity" is to one kind of scallop - this isn't really necessary or useful, as you can (and should) wikilink that species which I see is mentioned in "Shell of Saint James".
Clarification needed, if you would, please. KDS4444 (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I just meant link it in the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Not keen on Commons boxes in the text as at "Shell of Saint James".
The "Etymology" section should be near the top, just after the lead section.
Done I put this bit at the beginning of the taxonomy section, as it discusses the Latin meaning of the name— this seems like a nice lead into the complicated naming section that follows. I wasn't sure it warranted being placed earlier in the article (i.e., near the top) as I don't consider it all that interesting outside of the area of taxonomy (this despite the fact that I was a Classics minor in college). KDS4444 (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
The last paragraph of the lead needs to be cited and moved to the human section of the main text
Done by another editor.
A cited sentence or two should be added to substantiate the lead's mention of shell collectors also.
The sculpture link in the lead is wrong, please remove it.
Question Are you certain? The link goes to Sculpture (mollusc) where is where it is supposed to go. KDS4444 (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
The claim in the lead about use in art and architecture is true, but unsubstantiated. Please add a section in the humans section about the scallop shell as an architectural motif, and cite it.
Aquaculture: why are we talking about a "catch" here, given this is farming? "Scallop and pecten" is a tautology, better just say scallop.
Done I have removed the entire section— the reference was to a dead link, and when I tried to find any evidence of the information, I came up empty handed. The title of the original reference said, "Scallops and pectens", which is why this was used in the article, but it was tautological at its source which undermines is credibility as authentic in the first place. So got rid of it. KDS4444 (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
The Heraldry section is probably unduly long, and is very vaguely cited. I suggest it be cut down and focussed more tightly on the scallop, with precise citation(s).
In "As food" it's said that the "coral" is roe (twice), but it seems to be ovary. Please check and fix.
Question "coral" and "roe" appear to be interchangeable terms for the egg mass; "ovary" is the term for the organ containing that mass. One does not usually speak of eating the ovary but of eating the coral (even though the ovary is exactly what gets eaten). If this bears further clarification in the text, please let me know. I've never eaten a scallop myself, so am at a bit of a loss with regard to this. Also, in the US, the roe is routinely removed from the dish when served, so the chance to witness exactly what it is has all but vanished here. KDS4444 (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I suggest we avoid saying anything about anatomy in the "As food" section, and just call the pink material "coral" which is a well-established usage; that avoids misleading readers into thinking it's eggs, which it ain't. BTW you should try some! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
In "As food", para 3 wanders off-topic, probably, discussing Japanese terms that aren't for scallop. Focus please; and it's uncited. Probably simplest to cut quite a bit of it.
As food doesn't mention Coquille St Jacques (the prepared dish), and should. (It's mentioned but uncited in the Christianity section, probably shouldn't be there.)
In "Shell of Saint James, paras 2, 3, and 4 are doubtfully focussed. Para 2 uses unencyclopedic language like "Curiously"; even a claim like "popular" needs a specific reference. Perhaps all three paragraphs should be removed or rewritten.
In "Shell of Saint James", para 1 says the pilgrim could pick up food with "one scoop" (of the scallop shell he carried?). The next sentence implies this included beer or wine - a scallop wouldn't be much good for beer, nor could wine be scooped with barley already in the scoop. Perhaps this could be checked and reworded.
In "Shell of Saint Augustine", the 2nd sentence of para 2 seems not very logical and only weakly connected to the topic. Reframe or delete.
Fertility symbol: the paragraph on paintings of Venus is much too short for this important aspect of the topic. The birth of Venus/Aphrodite from the sea off Paphos, and the connection of the symbolism of the shell to her role as goddess of love (both Greek and Roman), need to be described and cited.
Fertility symbol: paras 3 and 4 on the pilgrimage on the Way of St James and its meaning of the setting sun should probably be moved to the Shell of Saint James section so we can have coherent coverage of that topic. I think the setting sun meaning is covered at WP:UNDUE length and some of para 4 is off-topic, especially the last sentence. Please cut down para 4 to focus on the scallop.
In "Other uses", the discussion of scalloped edges is doubtfully on topic and could be cut; so could the background of the Swan Service: both are uncited, too.
The "Other uses" section is not a very descriptive name: it would be better split and named more descriptively.
The New Zealand section is cited only to a commercial website of Forest and Bird. I think the entire mention of that firm is misplaced and should be removed; a better source is needed for the sentence about the Tasman Bay area.
"As food" para 3 is cited to an article in Phoenix New Times. Please add the date. The article does not cover all the paragraph (maybe only the last sentence), so please cite the rest of the claims.
"Shell of Saint James" is cited to EB, but all it says on the matter is『During the European Middle Ages the shell design of the pilgrim’s scallop (Pecten jacobaeus) became a religious emblem (the badge of St. James).』I think this ref could be removed without loss; I hope that the rest of the text is covered in Starkie 1965 p. 71?
References to whole books when only certain pages (perhaps just one) apply need to be made more specific by providing page numbers: I'll mark these up with "pages needed" tags.
The ref to Habe 1977 in the Taxonomy and phylogeny section has "location=Bivalvia and Scaphopoda", but that's the book's subtitle. If so, please use title= for that name, work= for the book, Please supply the page range of the chapter. If not, sort out what the ref does mean.
As far as I know, all the books are separately listed in the Bibliography and were turned into SFN format. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
It's in the Taxonomy and phylogeny section and not in the Bibliography, it doesn't have a page number and it has a location parameter that isn't a location. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I note that a "book template" is used for Habe, T. (1977). Systematics of Mollusca in Japan. Bivalvia and Scaphopoda.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)[clarification needed]. But I am unable to find this on line as a book. Is it an article? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
If it can't be found then could someone please replace it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I didn't put it in, and won't take it out. Can't find this source, and don't want to render it as unsourced. I am merely the messenger, not the originator. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Not personal, just a directive for the review, someone to do it please. But it is a book; we need the page, or another source.
Doesn't have an ISBN that I can locate. Odd. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Sounds too flaky to use, could the team replace it please.
FWIW, I think it is a real book. Updated the citation, but obviously no ISBN. I've encountered this in real low production/small publishing house books before. Given the specialized and narrow subject matter, this isn't totally a surprise, and IMO should not be a disqualfier. Indeed, its special provenance, the particular author, and the subject may make it indispensable. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
OK, likely right, but we require page numbers or a different source. Enough.
Done The Habe reference was to a primary source. I found a secondary one that discusses Habe, and have replaced the Habe reference with that secondary source, which is a complete citation including page reference and working URL. I think this particular reference problem can now be laid to rest, yes? KDS4444 (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Could you please add the artist Maggi Hambling and the date to the beach sculpture photo.
Done.
The Maggi Hambling sculpture would make more sense in the "Other uses" section beside the text which describes it.
Done.
Please add the location, Amisos (Pontus) and the date, 1st century BC–1st century AD, to the Aphrodite Anadyomene statue from the Louvre, and I suggest you use the wikilink here.
Done.
The Aphrodite Anadyomene image would make more sense in the Fertility symbol section.
Done.
I suggest moving the tall Carlo Crivelli image to the right, away from section headings.
The Carlo Crivelli image page on Commons says it's titled "Madonna". She, er, has a beard and wears the scallop, an emblem of James, son of Zebedee, so perhaps this'd best be fixed!
Done The person who uploaded the image to Commons made an error— the altarpiece does contain a painting of the Madonna, but this is obviously not her! I have now gone in and fixed the Commons file. KDS4444 (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
The article would be better with a cladogram such as the following, which you are welcome to use or modify, along with the citation and the next sentence. I am not connected to the authors in any way.
The cladogram is based on molecular phylogeny using mitochondrial (12S, 16S) and nuclear (18S, 28S, and H3) gene markers by Yaron Malkowsky and Annette Klussmann-Kolb in 2012.[1]
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am sorry, but I am withdrawing my nomination for this article to become a Wikipedia Good Article. The... work load... is beyond me. I have done what I could and I am now done. My apologies. This can go back to being considered merely a regular article. Thank you for your suggestions for improvement. Perhaps someone else some day will be willing to finish what I tried to start here. I cannot do it.
It was fun, though, right? KDS4444 (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I'm really sorry to hear that, specially as you've already fixed almost everything that was at all serious. I hope everything goes well with you 'in real life', whatever's on your menu at the moment. The article is already much improved (specially the referencing). Should any editor wish to take up the article in future, if the remaining mainly very minor comments are fixed, please resubmit the article to GAN, ping me, and I will with pleasure take up the review again. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Done I put this bit at the beginning of the taxonomy section, as it discusses the Latin meaning of the name— this seems like a nice lead into the complicated naming section that follows. I wasn't sure it warranted being placed earlier in the article (i.e., near the top) as I don't consider it all that interesting outside of the area of taxonomy (this despite the fact that I was a Classics minor in college). KDS4444 (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply