Talk:Slender glass lizard/GA1
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Casliber in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll take a look. I will make straightforward changes as I go and jot queries below. Please revert if I accidentally change the meaning. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- W
hen you mention someone for the first time, generally best to use their full name and a descriptor, such as "American naturalist Edward Drinker Cope" etc.
Why is it understood to be a distinct species?
Subspeciesdoes not belong under behaviour - you can place either under description or taxonomy
Taxonomyis better than nomenclature as it allows us to discuss why it is a separate species etc.
- In references section, some names are "Smith J" and others are "Smith, J." - choose one format and go with it.
- I fixed it.
Regarding External links - are any worthy of keeping if we look at WP:EL?- I removed them.
It has been rated on iucn redlist - I have added to infobox. a note should be in text. see Eastern brown snake as an example of how to put in text
This sentence - Similar to snakes, the species will hibernate in a hibernaculum - should be in behaviour not description. Also what does it hibernate in and what months is it doing this from and does this change across its range?
Put measurements in metric and imperial, best done with a conversion template (again, see Eastern brown snake if unfamiliar with this)
Similarly further reading? If these are useful should we be referencing them?
You say they are endangered in some states yet only mention Iowa. The others should be put in.
@Casliber: I think that I fixed all of these concerns. SL93 (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Also clear of copyvios.
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: