Talk:Trachylepis tschudii

Trachylepis tschudii 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
February 11, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

	Trachylepis tschudii 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 edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

Reviewer: – VisionHolder « talk » 19:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for offering to review. I don't intend to bring this article to FAC because its subject is too limited, but would like to make it as good as possible, so don't hesitate to make suggestions for improvement that go above and beyond the GA criteria. Ucucha 19:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Pass, with comments: The article is well-written and follows MoS, with no noticeable issues. Given that the species is only known from its holotype, I feel the article thoroughly covers the subject, particularly the species' taxonomic history and morphology. My only suggestions, which do not affect a GA review, are:

I personally prefer all references and cited literature to use the {{cite}} templates so that if, for instance, someone wanted to add an ISSN or ISBN, then it could be done easily.
Following from the previous point, it would be nice if the ISSNs of the articles could be included.

Aside from that, it's a great short article! – VisionHolder « talk » 19:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

P.S. - This is the first review I have ever done. Hopefully people agree with my assessment.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Add topic