Wikipedia:Peer review/Leopard gecko/archive1

Leopard gecko

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm listing this article for Peer Review because I'd like to bring it to GA or FA status eventually, and I'm wondering whether it will need only a few modifications or rather far-reaching changes. Any ideas to improve the article as much as possible?

Thanks, Leptictidium (mt) 15:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good start, but still a bit more work needed. Lists are normally a bad way to write prose, so I suggest nixing that from the Diseases section. Element names normally should not be capitalized, but you may check to see if "calcium" as a nutrient should be capitalized. Some of the sentences seem a bit oddly constructed, so I think it would be a good idea to have a copyeditor take a closer look. --mav (reviews needed) 01:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Here are a few more tips. This is not a complete review, but the article is "start" class and not yet the best of candidates for a thorough peer review.

The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to try to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections and not to include anything important in the lead that is not mentioned in the main text. WP:LEAD has details.

A sentence in the lead says, "It has become a well-established and popular pet in captivity but should only be purchased by an owner with the proper tank and equipment." - This sentence expresses an opinion and tells the reader what to do. Encyclopedias aren't "how-to" guides and steer clear of advising.

The first sentence of the "Taxonomy" section is sourced, but the second and third sentences are not, even though they include information that is not common knowledge and must have come from a source. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every claim that is unusual, every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and at least one source for every paragraph. If one source supports all of the claims in a paragraph, the inline citation should go at the very end of the paragraph.

Well-known words like "eyelid" do not need to be linked, but uncommon words like insectivore, dorsal (linked to "Dorsum (biology)", and ventral probably should be. Likewise "caudal" and "autotomy", and so on. Each decision to link or not to link requires thought.

Section heads generally start with a capital letter, but the other words in the head are lower-case unless they are proper nouns. Thus "Defense Mechanisms" should be "Defense mechanisms".

What makes "LeopardGeckos.co.za." a reliable source?

Avoid creating text sandwiches between images on opposite sides of the page. MOS:IMAGES has details.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subheadings Defense Mechanisms and Sexual Dimorphism have capital letters.

As Finetooth, said, there's a text sandwhich.

Let me just fix what I think is wrong. Sp33dyphil ^(Talk) ^{(Contributions)}^{(Feed back needed @ Talk page)} 10:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]