Talk:Cyclura nubila

GA Review

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

OK. for starters, needs a good copy edit. Is it Cuban Iguana or Cuban iguana. How do you get Blue iguana? The genus should be italicised throughout, as should foreign words like in-situ and ex-situ. Head-starting looks like a made-up word. Even if real, best avoided. I'll have a proper read through tomorrow, please check text carefully. jimfbleak (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Should be "Iguana", I made the change. The Blue Iguana is a different species:Cyclura lewisi; it used to be considered a subspecies of Cyclura nubila until 2004 after a phylogenic DNA study by Malone, et al showed enough differences for Specific status for C. lewisi. Head-starting was not made up by me. It is in the literature, by which I mean scientific peer-reviewed publications and has been in use with critically endangered species since the 1970's when first used on sea turtles and Galapagos Land Iguanas. It's used in the Blue Iguana article, which is a Featured Article. Thanks for looking!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Lead most endangered group of lizards in the world. = globally endangered

*in-situ and ex-situ italics

• taxonomy Sorry, my point with Blue iguana is that it's half capitalised, half lc. also Lesser Caymans iguana. If fully capitalising the Cuban one, the others should be too. Why is Nubila capitalised, species are always lc?

In this instance I capitalized nubila as I saw it as a direct translation of the surname "Gray"..so I was keeping it consistent from the POV of a former Latin scholar as opposed to a taxonomic POV.

• Schwartz and Thomas, Malone and Davis If you are not going to link or say who/what they are, best not to give the names. Why was it an error, presumably they made a correct assessment based on the information then available? - better to make a less pov phrasing

I'll work this out...I'll have to go back and read. I ID'd Catherine as a biologist then with Texas A&M. I don't recall right now but either Schwarz and Carey or Schwarz and Thomas wrote specifically about possibility of new species as opposed to subspecies, but never went further. IIRC, it seemed to be a timing issue or lack thereof.

• Anatomy and morphology five feet needs conversion

• Primary unit should be metres not feett for this, as in previous line

fixed

• grey please stick to one spelling

My preference is grey and I was keeping it distinct as it was named for the Scientist, Gray, and not it's sometimes greyish color.

• and thus, cannot form images why comma?

Dunno, i'll fix.

• osmoregulation link or explain please

there's been a wikilink to that since I put it in there...should I explain it here as well?

• plant matter contains more potassium than what? and as it has less nutritional content per gram than what?

Animal matter. I'd put "meat" but despite 35 years of studying,breeding, and keeping reptiles...still can't consider insects and inverts as meat. :)

• pottassium - please copyedit - I'll do the rest tomorrow so you can sort out typos, spelling, capitalisation and italics first jimfbleak (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll run it through spellcheck again.

Thanks again!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• As these iguanas have only a few rods... Could you clarify that we are taking about the retina?

I think I fixed this, let me know if it's still clear as mud.

• At the same time - redundant

fixed

• Vitamin D In its article, vitamin is lc

fixed

• Images lizard pics licence OK, not sure about copyright status of coins, so let that go. Captions should not normally include the name of the article topic. MoS also says they should be all right-aligned or alternate. jimfbleak (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

fixed all to the right, now

• Mating Cuban Crocodile has already been linked in lead, but (sigh) with a different capitalisation

fixed

• Distribution local residents of the base. Does this mean local = Cubans or just residents? If the latter, better to put US forces, since I don't imagine the prisoners spend much time on nature conservation.

fixed

• sometimes within the cacti, itself. not grammatical within the cactus itself

fixed

• These thorny plants ... They also make their burrows in trees and caves. plants don't burrow

clarified

• references where there are multiple refs in text, they should be in numerical order.

fixed

• Retrieval date linking should be consistent ref 1 does, 2 doesn't - I wouldn't link any

fixed!

• journals should be written in full, not abbreviated

fixed

• In the Schwartz and Carey ref, genus name should be in Roman, since normally italicised when rest of text is Roman

???

• De Vosjoli ref, isbn isn't linked

fixed

That's all for now, good luck jimfbleak (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Thanks again!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 09:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've done a penultimate read through and fixed the captions, ref italics and the odd typo/redundancy. Check that you are happy with these changes. I'll have one more read and do the final review later today. jimfbleak (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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:

If you are thinking of FA, a map would be helpful, and the prose needs tightening and polishing to satisfy the style experts. I'd suggest a peer review or independent copyedit, since it's difficult to see one's own infelicities. Good luck jimfbleak (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

FA concerns

After reviewing this article for WP:URFA/2020, I have some concerns that this article does not meet the featured article criteria anymore. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

• There is not much information about the species in the 2010s. Is there an update on their recovery or the status of the species?
• There is a large "Further reading" section. Can some of these sources be included in the article?
• There are instances of WP:OVERCITE, with "The Grand Cayman blue iguana is now recognized as a separate species." supported by 6 citations and a note. In other cases, the same citations used in successive sentences. Are these repeated citations necessary?

Thanks for considering my concerns. Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)