Talk:Anomochilus monticola

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Red-tailed hawk (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that despite being a dwarf, Anomochilus monticola is the largest species in its genus? Source: Das, Indraneil; Lakim, Maklarin; Lim, Kelvin K. P.; Hui, Tan Heok (2008). "New Species of Anomochilus from Borneo (Squamata: Anomochilidae)" (PDF). Journal of Herpetology. 42 (3): 584–591. doi:10.1670/07-154.1. ISSN 0022-1511
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Luisa González

5x expanded by AryKun (talk). Self-nominated at 14:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Anomochilus monticola; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article 5x expanded, passes earwig and is adequately sourced. No close paraphrasing was found, and the hook is interesting, cited inline, and verified. QPQ done. Nom good to go. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mertbiol (talk · contribs) 09:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I have read through this very interesting article. It's well written and generally very clear. Here are a few suggestions for improving the text. I also have one query on the references (below). Mertbiol (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead section

• Should "montane" (first paragraph, second sentence) be linked to montane ecosystems?
  • Done.
• I would be tempted to round the length measurement (in this section only) to "520 mm (20.5 in)"
  • I've restricted the sig-figs for the conversion to two to avoid false precision, but 521 is already rounded from 521.2 and any more rounding would just be intentionally distorting the measurements since they're from a single specimen.
• I suggest changing the first occurrence of "the species" in the final sentence of the second paragraph to "A. monticola" to reduce repetition.
  • Done.
• Should "data deficient" be linked (final sentence, second paragraph)?
  • Done.

Description

• Please link vertebral scales (final sentence, final paragraph).
  • Done.

Distribution and habitat

• fossorial is already linked in the "Description" section.
  • Removed link.

Ecology and conservation

• I'm not sure that "(adapted to living underground)" is necessary in the first sentence.
  • Moved gloss to first mention of word.
• Should the "who" in "unlike the rest of the Uropeltoidea, who give birth to live young" be "which"?
  • Fixed.

Reference check

I have checked the following references: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and [8].

• I haven't got access to [7] Gower et al. (2005), but [8] Li and Wiens (2022) states that "Cylindrophiidae is paraphylectic with respect to Anomochilidae" rather than "polyphyletic".
  • Fixed.
  • For Gower et al., The Wikipedia Library should provide access to the Wiley link. Otherwise, it's also available on ResearchGate.

Placing on hold

This is a very short list of queries and suggestions, so I will place the review on hold. Mertbiol (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Mertbiol, I've addressed all the things you've pointed out. AryKun (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Final verdict

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This is a very interesting article on a recently described species. It is well written and appears to cover all data and information currently available. Congratulations to @AryKun: for their hard work to bring this nomination forward. I have no hesitation in promoting it to GA status. Mertbiol (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)