Talk:Common side-blotched lizard

Common side-blotched lizard was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 28, 2012). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Amphibians and Reptiles Mid‑importance

	Common side-blotched lizard 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Rock paper scissors#Rock paper scissors analogs in nature|rock paper scissors mechanism]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2020 and 4 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Duckhunter&evol.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Spirit LG.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Physiology Suggestion

I felt that the section about “Physiology” was brief to an extent that it may not be deserving of having its own section. Compared to the other parts of this article, this section was far shorter, comprising only two sentences that did not provide that much useful information for readers. I suggested that this portion of the article should be worked on, which can be done by finding more information to add onto it. I believe that if this cannot be done, then it is probably appropriate to remove it entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minwoo.kwon (talk • contribs) 05:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mating strategy

I have duplicated the very interesting mating stratefy from the rock-paper-scissors article. This was mentioned in the introduction but no more detail was given here, even though it relates more directly to the lizard than to the game itself. However, it may need tidying up. Salopian (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Photos of all 3 types might be interesting, if someone has them. 70.162.156.229 (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www1.umn.edu/ships/evolutionofmorality/images/side-blotched-lizard-sinervo.jpg http://currents.ucsc.edu/05-06/art/lizardtrio.06-05-01.jpg orange, blue, yellow left to right.67.86.151.244 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Adding to behavior and mating

As part of my university’s course on Behavioral Ecology, I’ve rewritten/expanded on the behavior and frequency-dependent selection part of this article. As part of that, I’ve cut out some things that I personally didn’t feel belonged in a Wiki article (specifically, the link to http://humon.deviantart.com/#/d4yajc7). I hate to do it, though, since someone clearly did the work for it, so if you think you can fit it in somewhere I have no objections. WolfyFTW (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer edit

I made some edits to make the sentences more comprehensible. Overall, you did a good job. I think a consideration you may want to take into account is that the "mating" section is quite long. It would be possible to split this up, and perhaps even change the section title to rock-paper-scissor mechanism and explain, then put another section about DNA determination. Katims90 (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rob, I added a section on feeding behaviors. This includes a non-comprehensive diet and some theoretical observations on the feeding behavior according to the source. Overall, you're work is very detailed and I approve of what you have written here. Perhaps a more complete version of what I started would make this entry more complete. (Timothy Yung) TKYung (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rob, I started working on linking notable concepts and terminology from your section to other Wikipedia articles (most notably for rock-paper-scissor mechanism, posthumous fertilization, shared paternity, and passivity). After Katims90 and TKYung's changes, the writing was very clear. There were a couple more grammatical corrections that I added in. I agree that breaking the mating section into smaller sections would be useful, and have started those headings for you though you may decide to split up the writing/paragraphs here differently. Nsavalia23 (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a final review making some final grammar and wording changes. Each person's work has made the already well-written section read better, so I just added some final touches to make the section even more comprehensible and grammatically correct. WhitleyTucker (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Etymology" section was very brief, so I combined it with "Systematics" in a new section, "Taxonomy and Etymology." For aesthetics, I moved the image under "Systematics" to the right so that the bulleted list was not interrupted. The headings for Ecology and behavior were formatted incorrectly. I corrected this. I liked the description of the rock paper scissors mechanism of mating and the separation of the physical properties of tails and tail loss and the behavioral effects of tail loss. I reorganized to create the section "Aggression" with subsections for courtship and aggression related to the genotypes responsible for the rock paper scissors mating mechanism. I moved this into Ecology and behavior, since Aggression is a subset of Behavior. I also moved Avoiding Predation into Ecology and behavior. Spirit LG 20 October 2021

		WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles
		Hi! I wrote this as a college student. Please provide feedback and improvements.--Spirit LG (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Common side-blotched lizard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 19:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will take on the review of this article. Here are a few initial comments giving you some things to do before I review the article more fully. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section does not conform with the Manual of style
Several paragraphs are insufficiently referenced. See here for information on inline citations. In particular, the Systematics section has no references at all.
There is inconsistency about the use of capital letters for the lizard's name.
The images need better captions.
Measurements should be in both metric and imperial units.

GA review now on hold

Looking at the history article I can see that it has been considerably improved as part of a class project. The sections of the article concentrating on behaviour are in good shape. However the article is not currently up to GA standard for the reasons listed above. Some changes have been made since I made the above comments and the Systamatics section is better referenced now. However Criterion 3 "Broad in its coverage" is not well met. Currently the article is unbalanced with little or no information on some important topics such as distribution, habitat and ecology. Nor is Criterion 1b "... complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, ..." met. The lead does not currently provide a satisfactory summary of the rest of the article and it introduces material that is not included in the rest of the article. I am putting the review on hold for one week. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA fail

I am now failing this article as no action has been taken on the points mentioned above and the article does not meed the GA criteria. The Behavior section is thorough and well-referenced and if the rest of the article were to be brought up to this standard, it could be resubmitted for GA review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent capitalization

The basis for the criticism about inconsistent capitalization of the term, common side-blotched lizard, in the article seems to have been corrected. I propose that this particular criticism has been dealt with and that this issue should be closed.

I reviewed every instance of the term, common side-blotched lizard, throughout the article. The capitalization of the term is consistent and in compliance with Wikipedia standards throughout the main body of the article. No part of the term is capitalized unless it appears at the beginning of a sentence in which case, common, was capitalized.

The capitalization of the term is inconsistent in the list of references, however the capitalization of the term here has been made consistent with the usage in the titles of the referenced material. As such I believe the capitalization in the reference list of the term is correct. --Davefoc (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of the points I made initially have been met but the statements I made under the heading "GA review now on hold" have not been actioned. These were concerned with broad coverage of the subject and a suitable lead that summarised its content. In fact, apart from a bot, nobody has edited this article since 6th December. I would not have closed the review if somebody had been endeavouring to improve the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Common side-blotched lizard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929092139/http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/5.pdf to http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/5.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Class Edits

This lizard has a lot of unique information that is difficult to categorize in a general format, so great job addressing that with specific subheadings! I thought some of the paragraphs were a bit misplaced throughout the article (such as putting mating and reproduction under behavior instead of as independent headings so I rearranged the information a little bit. Other than that there wasn’t much to edit. Great job! Quill Quips — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.48.47 (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On this page, I chiefly improved the organization of the entry. For example, I moved the sections titled “Speciation” and “Physiology” up to after the section titled “Mating” in order to keep the description and discussion of the polymorphism in throat colors near each other. This allows for enhanced understanding of characteristics of the common side-blotched lizard. Additionally, I changed “Etymology” and “Taxonomy” to be two separate headings rather than one combined heading. I did so because they are rather distinct topics, and I believe that this way makes more sense. Another thing I added to this entry was changing the heading that was originally titled “Description” to “Physical Description.” My reasoning for doing so was that the entire Wikipedia entry is a description of the common side-blotched lizard, and thus, I thought the entry would be benefitted if this heading were more specific as it only listed the physical characteristics of the lizard species. Ritu27 (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]