Talk:New Guinea crocodile/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 16:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'll review this soon. In the meantime, how about the two other photos[1] here? Not great, but better than an empty article, I think. Also, any reason why this article is not at the common name? FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking on the review. I doubt the images are the right species. The description says "Saltwater Crocodile (Crocodylus novaeguineae)" and the photos were taken in a zoo in Indonesia. However the saltwater crocodile is Crocodylus porosus and I think the two photographs are probably of that species, pale and podgy rather than slim and elegant! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking now at Naish's blog, he uses these images and his captions state that they are New Guinea crocodiles. As for the name of the article, I just accepted what was there when I started expanding it. I'm not bothered either way. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, as for the name, isn't important for the GA, but could be nice for consistency. I'll make a formal move request once the article is passed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article by Darren Naish may contain further info and sources that could be used: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2012/06/24/crocodiles-of-new-guinea-philippines-crocodiles-part-iv/

I'll have a look. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The comments (often written by pro scientists) usually also has nice info that could lead on to other sources. Not that you have to be that thorough, of course... FunkMonk (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look, interesting but not in this instance useful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IUCN source should be used in the taxobox status as well, as in other articles. FunkMonk (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding the first cladogram from Crocodylus? Its closest relative could also be mentioned in the lead.
There is some inconsistency in which name is used, the common name is mostly used, but under characteristics (and a few other places) the scientific name is used. Should be the same, preferably the former. FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems these two sentences could be merged, or otherwise modified, it is as if it states the same twice, just with different details in each sentence: "Two populations of C. novaeguineae are known on the island, separated by the mountain range that runs along the centre of the island. The animal was first described from the Sepik River area in the north of Papua New Guinea but a separate population is found in the south of the island, from southeastern Papua New Guinea to the Indonesian provinces of Papua and West Papua."
"This primarily nocturnal crocodile" Why write this under habitat? Makes more sense under behaviour. FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Synonyms in the taxobox? At least one, C. n. novaeguineae, is mentioned in the text.

I have dealt with the above points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good now (though I'd expect phylogeny to be a subsection of taxonomy), there are a few details that the Naish article mentions which could be added.

Moved the Phylogeny section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"said to reach a maximum length of 4 m, though 5 m is claimed by some (Wermuth & Fuchs 1978)"

This paper is not available online. Is it permissible to use it as a reference for these facts, relying for this purpose on Naish's blog? On the other hand, several sources give the dimensions currently used in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Scant data from ecology and diet has led some authors to suggest that the New Guinea and Saltwater crocodiles may avoid competition through niche differentiation, with the former mostly eating fish and birds while the latter takes larger prey (Trutnau & Sommerlad 2006)."

I have seen this speculation mentioned elsewhere. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"with the southern animals having a relatively longer premaxillary region and two or more additional post-occipital scutes when compared to northern ones"
"Intriguingly, Oaks (2011) found C. mindorensis to be paraphyletic with respect to C. novaeguineae: that is, the New Guinea croc was recovered as a population within the Philippine crocodile."
These points are mainly for comprehensiveness, and should be sourced to the original publications rather than Naish' blog, but that's maybe for FA. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought of taking this article further. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, so you can include those things if you want, and you can cite the sources that Naish cites. But it's up to you, it is pretty much a GA now, so I'll pass it next time you reply. FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Oaks' study but not the precise differences between the northern and southern populations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, passed! FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]