Talk:Anolis oculatus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ucucha 18:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~If the subspecies are obsolete, why are they still listed in the taxobox?~~

~~A paragraph (and certainly a section) shouldn't be started with "it".~~

~~It doesn't seem fair to describe Cope as a herpetologist; he was much more than that.~~
~~When was alliaceus named?~~ If it is an earlier name, why is oculatus now used instead?
~~Is it really relevant to this article how Lazell got around Dominica?~~

~~"other morphological features"—other than what? No morphological features have been introduced yet.~~

"See Malhotra & Thorpe 1997, pp. 68–69, discussing the relationship of male body size to altitude, which may result from the higher occurrence of predation in lower coastal areas, and additionally be constrained by available food supply."—this sentence isn't very clear. I assume it tries to say that 1) males at higher altitudes are larger; 2) this may be because predation is more frequent at lower altitudes; 3) food supply may also play a role.
"Some traits vary altitudinally and others longitudinally, and correlate with ecological factors such as rainfall and vegetation type."—what is the subject of "correlate" here?
"Dominican Anoles are semi-arboreal, and mainly forage on the ground for food"—isn't this behavior as opposed to ecology? (I usually place "Ecology and behavior" in a single section so that I don't have to worry over what to place were.)
The lead is short, and omits information from many of the article's sections.
~~The article is mostly well-cited, but there are bits scattered throughout that do not have citations, but should.~~

Overall, it is quite good, but there are a number of minor problems I listed above. I am looking forward to passing this article as a GA after these problems have been resolved. Ucucha 18:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the primary creator of this article; thanks for your copyedits and comments. I'll try to address all of them over the next couple days. A few responses now:

I'm fine with removing the subspecies list from the infobox. I included it because the change has been in relatively recent research, and so a lot of people using somewhat older sources might expect it.
Cope's WP article describes him as a herpetologist, among other things; if the inclusion of that one term implies the exclusion of others, then the broader term "zoologist" would be more appropriate.
I think it's interesting and relevant how research regarding the species was conducted given that it is only found on one relatively undeveloped and obscure island, which is why the account of Lazell's experience was included (Lazell thought so too; a large portion of his paper describes his travels).
I've copyedited the footnote regarding size and altitude; hopefully it is more clear now.
I agree that the lead is too short; I've never been satisfied with it would appreciate help in expanding and properly organizing it to better summarize the article's content.
A lot of sentences do not have inline citations because the information is repeated in multiple sources and/or because subsequent sentences rely on the same source as a prior one. I've tried to explain this where appropriate, as in footnote 8 and 38. Please let me know if there are any particular sentences that stand out as needing more clarification on their sources.

postdlf (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for Cope, he is primarily known as a paleontologist. I think describing him as a herpetologist only might suggest to the reader that we are talking about a different Cope.

There are two FAs on insular American lizards, Cyclura nubila and Noronha skink, that you might use as examples for the lead. Basically, you should try to summarize something from every section.

On review, I agree that everything is implicitly referenced by the text of the footnotes. That's good enough for me. Ucucha 16:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Postdlf, are you making any progress yet? Ucucha 16:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't tried a rewrite of the intro, if that's what you mean. I think all other issues have been addressed though. I'm focused elsewhere right now in my WP efforts, so it may be awhile before I come back to this. If someone else could help to expand the lead, maybe whomever put this up for GA review, I would be happy to check it over based on my knowledge of the subject and sources. postdlf (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few more things that are unresolved; I've struck everything that is not. I have asked Casliber (talk · contribs) for some help with the lead. Ucucha 12:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Casliber, the lead has been greatly improved. However, a few other small issues remain. In particular, the taxonomic part may be erroneous; sources like [1] suggest alliaceus is not in fact a synonym of this species, but a name for a Guadeloupe anole. As no work is being done, I will fail the article now. Ucucha 17:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]