Talk:Western green mamba/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Reid,iain james (talk · contribs) 02:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
@DendroNaja: This article is fairly well-writen and long. I guess you have taken up my suggestion of expanding articles before nominating, but there are still a few comments. See below:
Lead
Again, any information that is both in the lead and the article should not be referenced in the leadAlso, any info not in the article but in the lead should be added to the appropriate section of the article, and the reference should be removed from the leadTo make the lead more understandable, it should be paragraphed according to the section of the article the info came fromThe lead could also use some expansion to include sections like etymology
To be continued once these comments are fixed... IJReid (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- >Completed that. What's next? --Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 17:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
@DendroNaja: Etymology
It is all referenced, betteryou use the genus name, but do not have it in italicsthe sentence "Schlegel used the name Dendroaspis, significant tree cobra" make no sense whatsoever.
Taxonomy
This section is very short, and is not very broad in its coverag.>??>.Any more information would be great, especially a cladogramI have no other comments, but more will probably come once the expansion is complete.
- A cladogram is available here it can be found on page 9 of the PDF (or pae 817). --Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 17:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Description
The Identification and physical description section mentions nothing about identificationThe description section could use a small overview of information that does not neatly fit into the two subsectionsAny scientific terms (canthus etc.) should be linked to their, or a related, page
- What exactly do you mean the "Id and physical description sections mentions nothing about identification"? That makes no sense at all. Snakes are identified by their scales (through scale counts, arrangement, surface texture, colour, and shape). Many species of snake look identical, but they are identified by examining the scales. All the scalation information for this species is in the article. --Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 17:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Scalation is a separate subsection, so it would be better if the "Identification" part of the header is removed.IJReid (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- What exactly do you mean the "Id and physical description sections mentions nothing about identification"? That makes no sense at all. Snakes are identified by their scales (through scale counts, arrangement, surface texture, colour, and shape). Many species of snake look identical, but they are identified by examining the scales. All the scalation information for this species is in the article. --Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 17:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Behavoir, diet and predators
the section name is to long, should be shortened to "Behavior"The predators section is to short, should be moved into the overview of the section (outside a subsection)venom could become be a subsection of behavior, depends on your preference.
Once these are fixed, I will go over the article again. IJReid (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I made two edits to the article, any comments? IJReid (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, no comments yet on my edits, but I find the article is already GA worthy. Nice job! IJReid (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)