Talk:Geoduck
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details.
The citation is in: Garth Woolsey. "Life in a fishbowl suits this new star just fine.", Toronto Star, January 23, 2005. |
|
This article has been cited as a source or otherwise recommended by the mainstream press. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source for details. |
Contents |
[edit] Jimp's changes of February 2006
Currently the article gives "GOO-wee-duck" for the pronunciation. It should be given in IPA as per Wiki Manual of Style. I'd do it myself but what's "GOO-wee-duck" meant to mean? I don't see how "GOO-wee-duck" could relate to either gweduck or goiduck. Jimp 06:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC) ... Okay I've found it here but I've not got the time now to fix it up. Jimp 08:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC) ... I've fixed it adding this dictionary reference. Jimp 03:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The American Heritage Dictionary linked to above had gweduc as an alternate spelling. I've added this. It doesn't mention gweduck or goiduck but I haven't removed these.
I've changed phonetically to phonemically: this is more correct. I've also changed the following.
weighing in at an average of one to three pounds (1.4 kg) at maturity, but specimens weighing over 10 pounds (4.5 kg) and as much as a meter in length are not unheard of.
It now reads as follows.
weighing in at an average of one to three pounds (0.5 - 1.5 kg) at maturity, but specimens weighing over 10 pounds (5 kg) and as much as a metre (3 feet) in length are not unheard of.
"one to three pounds" is a range "1.4 kg" is not. I've used the conversion "2 lb ≈ 1 kg" anything more accurate gives false precision. "10 pounds (4.5 kg)", for example, is an incorrect conversion. "10 pounds (5 kg)" is better. Similarly I've used "3 ft ≈ 1 m".
As for my respelling meter as metre: this was to be consistant with "Its large, meaty siphon is prized for its tasty (umami) flavour and crunchy texture." (emphasis added) which appears later in the article. WP:MOS recomends spelling be kept consistant so it was either metre and flavour or meter and flavor and flavour was first.
I've added a metric conversion for US$30/lb and an English conversion for as much as a metre. If we're going to have both we should have both in all instances. Though it's kind of odd to go from English units to metric in the one sentence. What was it in the source?
I've split a rather long sentence in two for ease of reading and fixed some capitalisation. I've replaced $80M with 80-million-U.S.-dollar: it's better this be spelt out it's also better the currency be specified. I assume they're U.S. dollars if not please fix it up.
I've moved the bit about The Evergreen State College back into it's own section: Trivia. Such stuff doesn't belong in the main body of an article. Jimp 04:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC) burp
[edit] Dirty job
Is that a geoduck in your pocket, or just happy sashimi? Mike Rowe PrometheusX303 03:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question
why come this ain't no duck
- Same reason why the quahog is not a hog. PrometheusX303 21:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] citations NEEDED
i tagged up the industry section, i really think whomever added this information really needs to provide links to some of their source material. i am also changing the name of the section back to industry and impact, since much of the content here deals with environmental impact... IMO this name should stay or the topics should be categorized separately. popefauvexxiii 17:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Obvious resemblance to male (human) phallus
Sorry to bring this up (no pun intended), but the article, while very well written, makes no reference to what is quite clearly the most distinctive aspect of the geoduck - it's resemblance to a (albeit very well endowed) human penis. Surely it could be worked in (fnarr fnarr) somewhere?
Labcoat 09:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Did you miss this sentence? "It is possible that this fact, in conjunction with the phallic shape of the siphon, has led to the belief that the shellfish has aphrodisiac properties." Prometheus-X303- 10:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Descriptive word
There is a difference of opinion as to the necessity of including the descriptor "Profoundly" in the sentence:
"It is possible that this fact, in conjunction with the profoundly phallic shape of the siphon, has led to the belief that the shellfish has aphrodisiac properties." While the Geoduck is phallic in shape the descriptor "profoundly is very subjective to each individual, and should not be included
Opinions? Kevmin 09:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
"Subjective"? Hardly. If the geoduck is not profoundly phallic in shape, I'm not sure what is. You would be hard pushed to find a single person in the world, regardless of race / culture etc who does not make the connection immediately when they first see the creature. It is the single most distinctive aspect of the geoduck. I don't understand why you're objecting to including the description so stubbornly.
Labcoat 00:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
