Talk:Agkistrodon piscivorus/GA1
GA Review[edit]
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
"Large and notorious" - not a very precise way of putting this, notorious amongst whom? Notorious for what?"It" - constantly repeated in the lead. Try interspersing "this snake" or "A. piscivorus" to break it up a littleLink or define "nominate subspecies" - technical term"integradation" - undefined and unlinked technical term- "
possibly extirpated" - a bit floridly-worded maybe just say "probably extinct" - "
The population trend is stable. Year assessed: 2007" - merge into a single grammatical sentence. "Constant persecution and drainage of wetlands" - unintentionally funny! Wetlands are not persecuted.- The huge list of food species is not particularly informative, might be better to summarise along the lines of "Frogs, newts, fish, snails.."
- b (MoS):
- Lead fails to summarise the article, should at least touch on the main sections in the text.
Don't mix feet and inches, and cm and mm as unitscc is not a standard unit, millilitres are the direct SI equivalent.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): Good
- b (citations to reliable sources): yes
- c (OR): no
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): yes
- b (focused): yes
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias: yes
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.: yes
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Cottonmouth Snake, Gaping.jpg could swap to the FDA-gov tag
- b (appropriate use with suitable captions): yes
Overall:
- On hold
- Overall pretty damn good, just some tweaks needed. Nice work! Tim Vickers (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
So far, I've addressed almost all of your points, even to the extent of creating a new article: Intergradation. I guess the introduction can still be expanded, but I'm not in favor of summarizing the list of reported prey species: I believe it is informative, even to the extent of being entertaining! But, I'll admit that you probably have to be more into the subject to appreciate that level of detail. --Jwinius (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- OK, that's up to you. Very good work, congratulations! Tim Vickers (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)