Talk:Opisthotropis hungtai

Opisthotropis hungtai is currently a Biology and medicine good article nominee. Nominated by AryKun (talk) at 09:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Short description: Species of snake

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

	Opisthotropis hungtai is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Latest comment: 6 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

Nominator: AryKun (talk · contribs) 09:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 05:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll have a look soon. At first glance, Heishiding Nature Reserve is WP:duplinked in the taxonomy section. FunkMonk (talk) 05:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Are there no other sources at all that could be used to pad the skimpy references a bit? News reports, press releases, etc.?
You don't seem to specify whether the type specimens were kept alive or killed. You have photos of them alive, but you also say they were "collected".

"Before Hung-Ta Chang's mountain keelback's description, specimens of the species were misidentified" Unnecessarily wordy, could just say "Before the description of the species, specimens were misidentified".

"in the mountain keelback genus Opisthotropis" Link the genus.

"Before Hung-Ta Chang's mountain keelback's description, specimens of the species were misidentified as being O. maculosa." By who and when?

"The specific epithet huntai is named after the Chinese" Usually you say the species is named after, not the name is named after. Could just be "the specific epithet refers to/honors the Chinese..."

"The authors of the study describing O. huntai recommended" Also seems unnecessarily wordy, could just be "The authors of the description recommended".

"these two species were most closely related to a clade" Sounds like there is a cladogram, why not show it?

"while the subcaudal scales yellow with brownish black margins towards the front and sides." I guess technically you can leave out "are", but it just makes the sentence awkward.

"Other specimens of the species were very similar-looking to the holotype, but has more maxillary teeth" Seems this goes from plural to singular for some reason.

"on the under side also have light central blotches, while the underside" Be consistent throughout whether you write "underside" or "under side".

"The internasal scales does not touch" Plural to singular.

"frontal scale touching preocular scales" and "than or equal to posterior pair" while technically possible, it reads awkwardly without "the" in both sentences.

"and Dawuling Forestry Station western Guangdong" Missing "in" before "western"?

Do we know anything about their diet?

Usually the whole authorship isn't listed in the taxobox, rather "Wang et al." or similar.

Is the cladistic study mentioned genetics or morphology based? And if the former, that would also be used to distinguish it?

Add topic