Talk:Forest cobra/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Reid,iain james (talk · contribs) 16:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Well-written:

the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

Unknown

it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

 Done

Verifiable with no original research:

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

Needs to add pages to non-web references and should use {{cite}} templates for all references

it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines and

Unknown

it contains no original research.

Unknown

Broad in its coverage:

It needs many more recent references and less internet references

it addresses the main aspects of the topic and

Needs more detail in the decription section to make it less like a list

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

 Done

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Unknown

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Unknown

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

Unknown

images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

First image in the article lacks a caption which it needs, and gallery images that should be moved to the article also lack captions

One thing off-the-bat that I noticed that could prevent the article from becoming a GA is the lead, it should be a summary of the whole article, and the lead here is way to short, also, the information in the lead should be in the article so the lead shouldn't have any references unless there is no place in the article for the information in which case, a ref is needed. More to come. Iainstein (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Taxonbox

• It is better to have an automatic taxobox than a manual one, its not needed but it would be good to have
• The genus name should always be italic unless it is a nomen nudum (in "quotes")
• A species can not be a synonym of itself, you have it in the synonyms box three or four times
• Since the article is about the species, you shouldn't have a collapsible list labeled species synonyms, it is redundant
• It has more than one common name [1]

Article

• The Distribution section is a little short and is just like a list
• The Gallery is not needed, there are plenty of spaces in the article for the images

References

• The most recent publication of a ref I can find so far is 2006, although some internet references might have been published more recently. To make it broad in its coverage it would have to have some more recent non-web refs.
• For internet references, if they have references for them, and if you can access them, use the ref for the web ref instead of the web ref because they are not always reliable.
• The references need to be consistent, authors should al have their first name either abreviated or in full, all references with "DOI"s should not have accessdates, all book refs should have "ISBN"s, all refs with pages should have page numbers, all book refs should have locations before their publisher and their location should be a city, all names should have their last name before their first, and more...
• Ref 1 - not needed, for synonyms use "Forest cobra". Encyclopedia of Life. Retrieved 5 January, 2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• Ref 2 - not needed, use eol and Hallowell refs instead
• Ref 3 - use full "Naja melanoleuca". WCH Clinical Toxinology Resources. University of Adelaide. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
• Ref 4 - I cannot find anywhere in "Hallowell, E. 1857" the mention of Naja melanoleuca, the only mention is Naja haje var. melanoleuca. Is there some reason for this
• Ref 5 - looks fine
• Ref 6 - apart from the missing page it looks good
• Ref 7 - proper way to add editions is like this Burton, M. (2002). International Wildlife Encyclopedia (Third ed.). Marshall Cavendish Corps. pp. 481–482. ISBN 0-7614-7270-3.
• Ref 8 - when adding a location it is not appropriate to have the country, page is missing, otherwise, looks good
• Ref 9 - it is not needed to have a republished date, for most of the time that symbolizes a second edition, and if not, it means nothing
• Ref 10 - looks good
• Ref 11 - should be more like this Haji, R. (2000). "Venomous snakes and snake bite" (PDF). Zoocheck Canada Inc. p. 14. Retrieved 27 February, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• Ref 12 - should be Tryon, B.W. (1979). "Reproduction in Captive Forest Cobras, Naja melanoleuca (Serpentes: Elapidae)". Journal of Herpetology. 13 (4): 499–504. JSTOR 1563487.
• Ref 13 - is it reliable?
• Ref 14 - dead link, remove ref, find url, or find new ref
• Ref 15 - not reliable, not needed
• Ref 16 - not reliable, not needed
• Ref 17 - 184 pages
• Ref 18 - 203 pages
• Ref 19 - doesn't need access date

I have to fail this review, for the article, and it has not been edited in the last month