Cancer pagurus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 28, 2010 Good article nominee Listed

This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Food and drink Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages. Arthropods Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I live in the Pacific Northwest, in Oregon. When I've gone crabbing, I've caught a crab that looks identical to the Edible crab (along with the indigenous Dungeness). We call it a Rock Crab. Can anyone confirm if the Edible Crab is the Rock Crab in Oregon?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by JessStuart (talk • contribs) 16:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it's possible that crabs can travel long distances with ships, its probably another species. It might be Yellow Rock Crab (Cancer anthonyi), Red Rock Crab (Cancer productus), or California Rock Crab (Cancer antennarius). Tey all seem quite similar to the european Edible Crab. -- Henriok (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I guff the meaning), and jot down some queries below. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be better to make crabs all singular in the lead.

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

60,000 t caught annually -tons? tonnes? I am guessing....

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a style thing, I generally place Taxonomy and systematics above description (at least I do in all my bird and fungi articles) This has the advantage of moving the Description down the page some, which is handy as one always wants to stick mice pics there, and it is helpful if the section is far enough down the page that it doesn't have a taxobox jutting into it on the RHS....

I generally take the view that taxonomic formalities are not the reader's chief interest, and should therefore be placed lower down than the stuff people actually care about. That generally means making it the last substantive section. It's important information scientifically, but not encyclopaedically. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, that's one way of looking at it. I tend to see it the taxo section as defining what the organism is, the background to naming it and other issues such as subspecies/evolution (if applicable). Don't forget, as the lead is a succinct potted summary, there will be a brief description there anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd link or explain sublittoral

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given it is not farmed, and overfishing is touched on - I am surprised there is not more discussion of whether there have been (presumably unsuccessful) attempts to farm it, and how its population has been impacted to date.

What proportion of crab consumption is it in Europe? I come from Australia where we eat Scylla serrata (Mud crabs) and Portunus pelagicus (Blue swimmers)...incidentally, do you have a strong preference for common over scientific names? Might be better at the latter....

I'll see if I can find a figure, without having to synthesise it myself from the FIGIS data. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My own synthesis of the FIGIS data suggests that C. pagurus makes up about 54% of the European crab fishery. No-one else seems to have analysed it that way. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My personal preference is always for scientific names, but the consensus prefers common names where they exist. "Edible crab" does indeed seem to be used more frequently for this species than "Cancer pagurus", so I think a move is only justified if other vernacular names, like "brown crab", are used enough that no single common name is reasonably ubiquitous. I'd happily move the article, however, if you thought it best. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the journals call it "brown crab" and others "European Edible Crab". I reckon that justifies a move. Most invertebrates are at their scientific names anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done You've twisted my arm... --Stemonitis (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any culinary information on how it is eaten?

 Done. Well, I've added a very small paragraph. I can't seem to find much discussion, just recipes. Maybe I'm not searching the best way. It's quite likely that a lot of British authors simply talk about cooking "crab", and I don't want to make the leap of assuming that it's this crab they're talking about (although it probably is). --Stemonitis (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of pagurus...

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try a web of science search to see what else comes up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was intrigued by the 100 year old crab mention - would be great to find some material clarifying/exploring that.

Also that it may be found in Mediterranean Sea? Ditto. That one has an article to chase.

 Not done The source I cited for this in turn cites Anosov, 2000 (doi:10.1163/156854000505218), who merely mentions in his abstract that it is yet to be confirmed whether C. pagurus occurs in the Black Sea, and doesn't return to the species in his text. Apart from trawling back through individual records, I don't think I can really add much. If it does occur in the Mediterranean, it's certainly not common. Given the taste the locals have for it, there would have been plenty of reports by now. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. stricken. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I typed "Cancer pagurus" into Web of Science, 395 articles came up - I am trying to sift through to find ones of general itnerest to the reader:

This looked interesting --> [1]

One on a parasite

 Not done I think the current section on parasites is comprehensive enough. I wouldn't want to single out one parasite for special attention. We're very lucky that someone published a review of the diseases of C. pagurus so recently; I rarely get to use the secondary literature when writing about crustaceans. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

okay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, one which mentions different prices according to catch site and composition

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - some other minor comprehensiveness queries I pointed out above, the more I think aobut it they are fine for GA, but might be worth looking into for FA (be nice to get a crab on the mainpage... :)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cancer pagurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606061453/http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/rbz/biblio/s17/s17rbz.pdf to http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/rbz/biblio/s17/s17rbz.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]