Talk:Anomochilus monticola/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mertbiol (talk · contribs) 09:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I have read through this very interesting article. It's well written and generally very clear. Here are a few suggestions for improving the text. I also have one query on the references (below). Mertbiol (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead section

• Should "montane" (first paragraph, second sentence) be linked to montane ecosystems?
  • Done.
• I would be tempted to round the length measurement (in this section only) to "520 mm (20.5 in)"
  • I've restricted the sig-figs for the conversion to two to avoid false precision, but 521 is already rounded from 521.2 and any more rounding would just be intentionally distorting the measurements since they're from a single specimen.
• I suggest changing the first occurrence of "the species" in the final sentence of the second paragraph to "A. monticola" to reduce repetition.
  • Done.
• Should "data deficient" be linked (final sentence, second paragraph)?
  • Done.

Description

• Please link vertebral scales (final sentence, final paragraph).
  • Done.

Distribution and habitat

• fossorial is already linked in the "Description" section.
  • Removed link.

Ecology and conservation

• I'm not sure that "(adapted to living underground)" is necessary in the first sentence.
  • Moved gloss to first mention of word.
• Should the "who" in "unlike the rest of the Uropeltoidea, who give birth to live young" be "which"?
  • Fixed.

Reference check

I have checked the following references: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and [8].

• I haven't got access to [7] Gower et al. (2005), but [8] Li and Wiens (2022) states that "Cylindrophiidae is paraphylectic with respect to Anomochilidae" rather than "polyphyletic".
  • Fixed.
  • For Gower et al., The Wikipedia Library should provide access to the Wiley link. Otherwise, it's also available on ResearchGate.

Placing on hold

This is a very short list of queries and suggestions, so I will place the review on hold. Mertbiol (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Mertbiol, I've addressed all the things you've pointed out. AryKun (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Final verdict

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This is a very interesting article on a recently described species. It is well written and appears to cover all data and information currently available. Congratulations to @AryKun: for their hard work to bring this nomination forward. I have no hesitation in promoting it to GA status. Mertbiol (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)