Jump to content

Talk:Crocodilia/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 14:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: LittleJerry

This is clearly a very strong candidate. I am attempting a thorough copy-edit, since most of the article's shortcomings appear to be very minor grammar and wording issues that are very easy for me to fix. I will bring more significant issues here, along with any questions I have. Due to the thoroughness and scope of this article, it may take up to a week for me to completely review. – Quadell (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: I notice that the article is not consistent in the use of the serial comma. (That's not a GA requirement, but I assume you'll want to nominate this at FAC eventually.) Would you prefer to use, or to omit, the serial comma? I can fix it where I see it, if I know your preference.
Okay, serial comma then. LittleJerry (talk)
  • Question: In the first paragraph of the "Locomotion" section, I'm confused about something. Read the part that begins "Their ankle joints flex in a different way..." and continues until the end of that paragraph. Does that describe just the "high walk"? Or is that section true for both the "high walk" and the "low walk"?
Probably both, but Cwmhiraeth would probably answer better. LittleJerry (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cwmhiraeth, what's your understanding? – Quadell (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its the way the joint articulates. It is of particular relevance to the high walk, which is a gait not found in other modern reptiles, but accommodates other forms of locomotion as well. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, great. If it were only relevant to a discussion of the high walk, I would have recommended some rearrangements to the section. But as it is, I don't think any change is needed. – Quadell (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question/Issue: When the text says "The powerful closing muscles are low-slung", what does that mean? Is there an article this could link to explain "low-slung"? Or could it be reworded to make the meaning clear?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question/Issue: The word "knobbly" sounds unencyclopedic to me, but I'm an American. In British English, is "knobbly" a word you might use in a semi-professional work like a Wikipedia article? If so, that's fine, but if not, it should be replaced.
Changed, I'm American too. LittleJerry (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issue: Consider this passage. "Various functions for these have been suggested. They may play a part in communication between crocodilians, and also seem to produce pheromones and play a part in courtship." The three possibilities are related. If they produce pheromones, or if they play a part in courtship, then they certainly play a part in communication between crocodilians, right? Unless I'm not understanding the various theories, it should be reworded to make clear that they might have a communicative function, in that they produce pheromes and/or play a role in courtship.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issue: "During breathing, the lungs are stretched and pushed against like a piston." Pushed against what?
Fixed.
Well no, now the article says "During breathing, the lungs are stretched and like a piston", which isn't right. The source does not mention pistons at all, so perhaps it would be best to simply omit the entire sentence? – Quadell (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issue: "Crocodilians can hold their breath for four to fifteen minutes and perhaps as long as two hours." That's unclear, and isn't a good representation of the info at the source, which is "Usually they can hold their breath from 4 - 15 minutes but can remain underwater for 2 hours if needed and if they aren't stressed." How about something like this? "Crocodilians typically remain underwater for short periods of fifteen minutes or less, but some can hold their breaths for up to two hours under ideal conditions."
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issue: "Gaping with the mouth open can provide cooling by evaporation from the mouth lining." That's redundant, since you can't gape with the mouth closed. But I think simply saying "Gaping can provide..." might be confusing, so I would prefer a wording like "Gaping (resting with the mouth open) can provide", since gaping is mentioned in the next section, so long as the word "resting" is accurate. (I assume they are resting and not swimming or walking while they gape to cool off.)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I guess it's good enough now. – Quadell (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issue: Lolong should be mentioned in the article body, since he is mentioned in a caption.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's one way to undo the Gordian Knot! – Quadell (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question/Issue: In most of the article, it is clear when you are referring to all crocodilians, and when you are referring to a single species or group. But there are some parts where I'm not sure. Notably, the "Reproduction and parenting" section begins by discussing all crocodilians, but begins discussing American alligators in sentence four. Then, in the four sentences between "Copulation typically occurs in the water..." and "...during which time the pair continuously submerge and surface", I'm not sure if you're referring to American alligators specifically, or all crocodilians. It's especially confusing because the source is a book called Crocodile: Evolution's greatest survivor. So my questions are (a), does that source really cover everything in the paragraph up to the first citation, including the bits about American alligators? And (b), do the sections regarding copulation refer only to American alligators, or to all crocodilians, or to crocodiles specifically?
Fixed. The book is about crocodilians in general. LittleJerry (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Related to the above, when the text says "The incubation period is two to three months", is that true for all crocodilians?
Fixed, per above.
  • Question: Similarly, the "Communication" section begins "The social life of a crocodile begins..." Should that be "crocodilian", or does this refer only to crocodiles?
Fixed.
  • Issue: Citation #59 is "Ross, p. 109", but page 109 should be a section written by Lang. Should this be Lang, or is the page number wrong? Other citations have the same problem.
Ross is the editor of the whole book. LittleJerry (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine for GA. If you decide to submit it as a FAC, though, you may want to format the references to be more explicit about the author. – Quadell (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Ross references are mine. I propose get the book out from the library again (on Monday) and will check page numbers and change these citations to reflect the authors' names for the different sections. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now reformatted these book references to refer to the authors of the sections concerned. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: In the first paragraph of the "Communication" section, everything down to "Nearby adults respond quickly to juvenile distress calls" seems relevant and important. But the rest of the paragraph, from "as was demonstrated at a Papua New Guinea crocodile farm" until "making deep calls and engaging in headslapping", seems like an amusing anecdote that was only observed once. It doesn't seem important enough to be in an article about crocodilians in general. In my opinion it would be better to remove that entire section, and merge paragraph one with paragraph two.
Removed anecdote. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issue: The "Growth and mortality" section states "Birds of prey take their toll, and there are usually some malformed individuals that are unlikely to survive." Usually some malformed individuals... in each brood? Each season? Or what?
Changed to often, but I guess it means in each clutch. I'll check when I get my Ross book. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded this bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. – Quadell (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issue: CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora) should be linked at the first mention, in the "Farming and ranching" section. I'll leave it up to you, whether to also link at the second mention; I could make a good argument either way.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question/Issue: There seems to be a contradiction. In the Farming and ranching section, the difference between the two is explained: "Farming involves breeding and rearing captive stock on a self-contained basis, whereas ranching means the use of eggs, juveniles, or adults taken each year from the wild." But the Conservation section claims "In the late 1970s, crocodiles began to be farmed in different countries, starting with eggs taken from the wild." Is that truly a contradiction, or am I misunderstanding?
Every farmed animal came from a wild egg if you go far enough back in its ancestry, which is what 'starting from...' means, so there's no contradiction. Said "starting off" and added a note as well (belt and braces). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, that makes sense. But to be honest, the footnote feels a little gimmicky to me. In my opinion, a simple "started from eggs taken from the wild" would be ideal. – Quadell (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: The 2nd paragraph of Conservation, about gharials, begins by describing the drastic, widespread decline of gharials over many decades. But it ends with two sentences about just "several" dead gharials in a single river in a single month, without a clear cause of death. This seems trivial, compared with the rest of the paragraph (or really, the rest of the article). We don't want to include each find of dead crocodilians in history in a general article like this. I would favor omitting those two sentences, or perhaps replacing them with something briefer and more general, such as "The gharial population continues to be threatened by environmental hazards such as heavy metals and protozoan parasites".
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issue: "This long-term decline had a number of causes, including hunting, egg collection, killing for indigenous medicine, and killing by fishermen." It seems to me that "killing for indigenous medicine" and "killing by fishermen" are included in "hunting".
Reworded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question/Issue: I'm not sure it's correct to say "In Ancient Egyptian religion, the crocodile represents Sobek... and Ammit". I don't have access to the source, and if the source says the animal represents the two gods, then that's fine. But it's usually said that the god is represented in the form of the animal, not that the animal itself represents a god.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issue: I know what you mean when you say "Similar tales exist in Native American and African American folklore, with an alligator and Br'er Rabbit." But no Native American group told tales of Br'er Rabbit.
Clarified. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I further reworded for smoothness. If I've lost some of the accuracy or nuance, feel free to revert. – Quadell (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That works fine for me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: It seems to me that the tale of the Leviathan in Job would fit better in the "In mythology and folklore" section, rather than the "In literature" section. (It's both, of course.)
Moved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears LittleJerry undid your change. If there are different opinions on this, we should probably discuss it. – Quadell (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(And see below, regarding general changes tot he literature section.) – Quadell (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I altered the sentence on Herodotus. Herodotus' writings about the crocodile are found at chapter 68 of book 2, and I'm not sure the best way to summarize his description. It's possible the sentence could be further improved. – Quadell (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. There's more at cleaning symbiosis. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified 'Ind' and the land of Prester John, both in [...]. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: The first half of the "In literature" section (besides the sentence about Job) describes the quasi-fanciful accounts by ancient historians. An introductory sentence would help the reader understand what is being described, as in "Ancient historians have described crocodilians from the earliest historical records, though often their descriptions contain as much legend as fact." (This would be easier if the Job reference were moved, of course.) Similarly, the second half is all about children's literature, so an introductory sentence would be helpful there too: "Crocodilians, especially the crocodile, have been recurring characters in stories for children throughout the modern era" (or words to that effect).
Done. This change means it would probably be better to move Job to the previous section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Although Job is clearly literature, it doesn't fit in well with either the ancient historians or the modern children's tales. And speculation that the crocodile inspired the Leviathan fits much better near speculation that the crocodile inspired descriptions of dragons, not to mention stories of sea monsters and interactions between crocodilians and the gods. I have moved it. I hope this is acceptable to all. – Quadell (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: I really like Roald Dahl, but I don't think his 46-page children's story deserves more space than J.M. Barrie, Lewis Carroll, Rudyard Kipling, Shakespeare, or Herodotus. (It's always hard to keep an "In literature" or "In popular culture" section from becoming a list of whatever media the most recent editor is most fond of.)
You're right. Shortened Dahl. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to give it one final look-through. – Quadell (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any more needed improvements. In every section, I asked myself, is anything missing? Is there more on this aspect that should be discussed? And every time, the content seems full and complete. This article clearly passes all the GA criteria, and is probably ready for FAC if that's the direction you want to take it. Congratulations to you, LittleJerry, as well as to everyone else who participated in this nomination. – Quadell (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the preparation. LittleJerry (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crocodilia/GA1&oldid=850861429"