Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of reptiles of Bulgaria/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of reptiles of Bulgaria

[edit]

List of reptiles of Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Gligan (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because, as with the first list in that series, list of amphibians in Bulgaria, I hope that a successful promotion would encourage other users to create or improve lists of reptiles/amphibians (and other animals) by country. As I have stated in the argumentation of the first nomination, while the lists of mammals and birds generally cover most countries, the lists of amphibians and reptiles still cover only a limited number of countries, which is surprising, having in mind the available information. I have implemented the recommendations, suggested during the nomination discussion of the List of amphibians of Bulgaria. Regards, Gligan (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The refs are a bit misleading. "The family contains about x species in y genera, of which z species occurs in Bulgaria.[ref]" where ref only refers to x and y but not z. pls move the ref location after the comma, and try to find some other ref for z. Nergaal (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Gligan (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Gligan (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Gligan (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(intro should mention which of the species are threatened, since there are only like 5 of them. Nergaal (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Gligan (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have made an entry for Anguis colchica. --Gligan (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about Trachemys scripta? Biserkov in his Определител на земноводните и влечугите в България gives information about this turtle, although it's an just introduced species.--TnoXX (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added information on Trachemys scripta in the intro. --Gligan (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Review by PresN

Reviewing this list, since I reviewed the amphibian list (and I like to encourage these non-sports/music/film lists):

  • A couple times in the lead, you use a spaced mdash ( — ) to make asides. This should either be a spaced ndash ( – ) or an unspaced mdash (—). Or just a colon.
  • "The foundations of the Bulgarian herpetology" - "The foundations of Bulgarian herpetology"
  • In all cases but Cheloniidae, you start off with "X are a family"; only for that family do you say "Cheloniidae is a family". This should be consistent, in whichever direction is correct.
  • "recorded up to 1100 m altitude in Lozen Mountain" - this should either be on Lozen Mountain, in the Lozen mountains, or in the Lozen Mountain region, depending on what was meant; the capitalization/wording makes it hard to tell if the grammar is just off or if it's the proper name of a region.
  • "The lower course of the rivers Struma, Arda, Maritsa, Tundzha, as well as..." - should have an "and" before Tundzha, as that's the end of the sublist. Also drop that comma, since it looks like you're not going with the oxford comma anywhere else- so it should be "The lower course of the rivers Struma, Arda, Maritsa and Tundzha, as well as..."
  • "There are 73 species in 10 genera, of them two species occur in Bulgaria." - of which
  • "Widespread in the whole country" -> "Widespread throughout the whole country"
  • "Found in the whole country" -> "Found throughout the whole country"
  • Scincidae is the only family that you don't mention how many genera there are, any reason?
  • "There are 844 species in 118 genera, of them 12 species..." - of which
  • "except for the high mountains of souther-western Bulgaria" - "southwestern (or southwest) Bulgaria"
  • "Occurs in the Upper Thracian Plan, the Danubian Plane..." - should be "plain" both times, and I'll ignore the obvious snakes on a plane joke
  • "Found in southern Bulgaria: lower Struma valley, eastern Rhodope Mountains, Dervent Heights, Strandzha" -> "Found in southern Bulgaria: lower Struma valley, eastern Rhodope Mountains, Dervent Heights and Strandzha"
  • "Widespread in the whole country, up to 1600 m altitude..." - widespread throughout the whole country
  • "Found in southern Bulgaria: lower Struma valley, eastern Rhodope Mountains, Dervent Heights, Strandzha, the southern Black Sea coast" -> "Found in southern Bulgaria: lower Struma valley, eastern Rhodope Mountains, Dervent Heights and Strandzha, and the southern Black Sea coast"
  • "They include 329 species in 33 genera, of them..." - of which
  • Vipera aspis and Vipera berus have spaced mdashes again
  • The notes section should be spaced ndashes or unspaced mdashes, not spaced hyphens
  • Redirects that don't seem intentional: four-lined snake is piped to its latin name which redirects to... four-lined snake
  • I'd feel better about "The Reptile Database" being used as a source if there was a publisher in the ref or something that showed it was an RS, and not just some guy's pet project

That's it, most of the grammar things repeat a few times so it's not really that much. If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing my List of Square Enix video game franchises FLC up above. --PresN 20:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The review was indeed helpful, for which I am very grateful. --Gligan (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --PresN 01:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Dudley

  • I have set my computer to flag up harvnb errors, and it is flagging up most of your citations and sources. See Template:Harvard citation no brackets. You show a ref as <ref>{{harvnb|Biserkov|2007|p=34}}</ref>, but you should use either ref or harvnb, not both, and you have to show the author surname the same way in the source and the ref, but you have it in Latin script in the ref and Cyrillic in the source. As you are using sources in a different script harvnb does not work, so I think it would be better to show give the ref in the form <ref>Biserkov, 2007, p. 34</ref> It would then come out the same but not give an error message.
Done. --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are six turtle and tortoise species of four families" Why lump them in together? I would give separate figures for each.
Done. I have put them together, because in Bulgarian there is only one word for all turtles and tortoises :) --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "14 lizard species of four families" You have 14 and then four. I believe the rule is you should stick to numerals or alphabetical for numbers, not mix the two. Also I would say "species in four families", but this is probably a matter of taste.
Well, I generally spell the numbers from 1 to 10 and write the numerals for those above 10. This system was recommended to me in a process of reviewing another article (I don't remember which one). --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition, in recent years one turtle species, the North American red-eared slider, has been registered in numerous bodies of water all over the country and is not included in the list" If this introduced species is widespread, should it not be in the list?
It is my firm belief that introduced species should not not be included in any list of species. They should be mentioned/listed separately. --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a note explaining conservation status codes as a note at the end. It would be helpful to readers to have it as a key at the start of the table.
I would be grateful if you do this yourself because I can't figure out where exactly to place the codes so that they could fit well into the list. --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say in the lead that some species have not been seen since the first half of the twentieth century. I think this should also be stated in the entry for these species in the table.
It is stated in the entry of the species - Vipera aspis, Vipera ursinii. --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But not the entries for the turtles. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the exception of two species, they are distributed in the Western Hemisphere" Do you mean only found in the Western Hemisphere?
Yes. --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the review. I am going abroad now and will attend to these remarks upon my return next week. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is, as I said, a first rate list, but I am doubtful about the criteria for inclusion. Why exclude widespread introduced species? The title of the article is "List of reptiles...", not "List of native reptiles...". Would you exclude the European rabbit from a list of mammals in Britain because it was introduced by the Romans? If not, you have to choose an arbitrary cut-off date for a species to be listed. It also seems a stretch to include species not seen since the first half of the twentieth century, particularly the turtles, only recorded once or twice, over 65 years ago, in Bulgarian waters. I do not see how they can be considered "reptiles of Bulgaria". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Definitely worthy for FL status. I couldn't really spot any major issues. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support :) Best, --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Godot13

Done. --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment

Putting back on my delegate hat for a moment- @Nergaal, TnoXX, and Dudley Miles: you all gave a review (of some extent); are you willing to support/not support/finished with your review? --PresN 16:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Jakec

Very nice list, I was pretty surprised to learn that there were only 38 reptile species in the whole country! Just a few comments:

  • "Rhodope mountains" should be wikilinked and capitalized.
  • I don't think there's any need to make tables sortable if there's only one row in them.
  • Should the species names be linked instead of the common names? I'll leave this up to you, but in my opinion, it would look better.
  • "Known only from a few specimen" - 'specimen' should be plural
  • Altitudes should be converted to feet as well, using the {{convert}} tmemplate.
  • "In addition, in recent years one turtle species, the North American red-eared slider, has been registered in numerous bodies of water all over the country and is not included in the list" - If so, why isn't it on the list?
  • Why are extinct reptiles included in the list? I doubt this article lists every reptile species that has ever lived in Bulgaria, so what is the cutoff.
  • "were laid in the" - should be "were laid out in the"
  • "The highest diversity of reptiles is recorded in southernmost Bulgaria – the valley of the river Struma, the eastern Rhodope Mountains, the southern reaches of the river Maritsa and Strandzha." - does not appear to be cited in the lead, or repeated in the body. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_reptiles_of_Bulgaria/archive1&oldid=1076195722"