Talk:Nerodia clarkii/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Edward-Woodrow (talk · contribs) 15:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review thus far!

1A: I'll go ahead and fix the grammar mistakes, as well as the apostrophe and capitalization mistakes. I'll also try and simplify the complex sentences and whatnot, old writing habits die hard lol. Not sure what a hatnote is, but i'll add those in as well, and I shall try and simplify the complex language — Though, the language is complex for a reason, as there aren't many better ways to describe it. That part on osmosis was basically a direct paraphrase from my book references that I've gotten from the library.

1B: Not sure what you are referring to here? I've noticed it's pretty standard practice to bold the subject of the article in the first sentence or two.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I meant in the header "Gulf salt marsh snake (N. c. clarkii)", the text "N. c. clarkii" was in bold. The issue has since been fixed, so no problem there.

-----------

3: Yeah, wasn't sure how to incorporate the old taxonomy section into the new species breakdown that I created - suggestions would be both welcome and appreciated Alexcs114 (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

1A fixed, simple spelling and grammar mistakes have been corrected. For the complicated portions, I've tried to simplify the language and hyperlink more things. Neonate replaced w/ juvenile, for example. The majority of the section on synonyms has a dash, so I've went ahead and added that in for the rest of the sections as well. (Looks better, IMO). Figured out how hatnotes worked and added that in, looks way better! Added more variation between this subspecies and this race,

2: I've went ahead and added a reference from University of Florida, as you can see their identification portion primarily lists different pattern characteristics as the main means by which to identify this snake. Thanks for catching that I forgot to reference it! Alexcs114 (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

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

---

I see no maintenance templates, and no problems leap to the eye. This is my first GA review, so I hope I'm doing things right.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   I found one grammar mistake- ("they has a tendency"), and there are a few clunky sentences and odd word choices- "There are three subspecies of the Salt marsh snake, which are as follows:", "native range of populations". For the section on N. c. clarkii, I'd suggest adding a hatnote ({{main article}}), and varying between "this subspecies" and "this race" at the start of sentences so it isn't as repetitive. A few sentences feel a little too technical for the ordinary reader- "intergrades", "continual osmotic draw on their tissues electrolyte balance", "ontogenetic difference between neonate..."- I'd suggest at least adding some links by way of explanation, or simplifying the language a little. And I'm fairly sure there should be an apostrophe after "tissues" (possessive). Minor fix: Dinurnal -> diurnal (end of the Atlantic salt marsh snake section). Not sure why N. c. clarkii is in bold on its section header. On the other hand, parts are very well written and smooth to read.

In the taxobox, the section on synonyms has inconsistent formatting for the authorities- dash or no dash?- and the list itself is a little long. I'd recommend compressing it into a {{collapsible list}}.

Concerns have been adressed- thanks.

1. b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lead is well-written and adequately summarizes content. Layout is good. No puffery, promotional content, euphemisims/vagueness, weasel words, etc. (MOS:WTW)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

I'd like to see a reference that directly says "Different subspecies of this snake are primarily identified via color patterns on each snakes belly/anterior," as far as I can tell, that isn't fully verified in the body. There is certainly detail regarding subspecies' colouration, but "primarily identified" is a fairly bold claim.

1. a. (reference section):

   References are well-formatted.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   Listed sources look reliable.

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Earwig tool returns violation unlikely [1], manual check of online accessible sources looks good.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   Stays in scope

   b. (focused):

   Sections on subtopics are sufficiently short; summarizing and informing without going into super-detail.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Looks good; other viewpoints regarding the taxonomy are noted. However, they could be noted in the subspecies sections. Nevermind, not necessary to maintain NPOV, the taxonomy section is the suitable place.

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. 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):

6. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   @Alexcs114: Excellent work on improving the article; all criteria are met. I'll make the changes to the talk page, etc. as soon as I can.

(Criteria marked are unassessed)