Talk:Argentine black and white tegu/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Artem.G (talk · contribs) 11:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article! Artem.G (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can see many problems, the biggest one is sourcing:

in Description, first 3 paragraphs are unsourced
Lifespan - unsourced
in Diet - snakes and small mammals (such as rodents[16]).[14] - confusing refs

Done

Reproduction - second para unsourced
Blue tegu - second para unsourced
Captive husbandry - unsourced
Taxonomy - partially unsourced
please check that big paragraphs with one source are really sourced ones (f.e. Life Cycle has two big paragraphs with two sources)

Besides, earwig tool shows 89% of copyvio! Please check whether it's copied from https://swampyreptiles.com/ or maybe it's this site copies everything from this article.

Broadness:

Epidemiology is just one sentence

Moved and merged for it to be a sub-section.

in Social Behavior there is only Aggression

Moved and merged other sections into Social Behavior.

Enemies - one sentence

Moved and merged for it to be a sub-section.

Legality - one sentence about South Carolina

Other stuff:

all such headings shouldn't be capitalized: "Interactions with Humans and Livestock", "Invasive Advantage", "Endothermic Behavior", etc

Done

"Social Behavior" and "Endothermic Behavior" are in different sections, are you sure that the latter belongs to "Physiology"?
both "External links" and "Further reading" have links; usually "Further reading" is for books, so I think here it can be merged into one section
link Care for Black and White Tegus seems to be to not a reliable source
refs 4 and 6 are bare

The article has multiple problems, though they all can be addressed. The biggest problems are sourcing and broadness, and article needs a little cleaning. I put it onhold for a week, feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Once these problems would be addressed, I'll resume my review according to GA criteria. Artem.G (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Artem.G, I'm extremely concerned about the possible copyvio in this article, since large parts seem to be the same as here. I'm not sure whether it's the latter website that's mirroring Wikipedia, but this needs to be checked out. AryKun (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and I hope the nominator will check it. The only snapshot in the archive is from Dec 6, so it's possible that they copied everything from here. Artem.G (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, the week had passed, almost no progress is seen and all the problems remain. Right now it's a fail , if the nominator is willing to work on this article I think addressing all the points above would make a good start.Artem.G (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agression[edit]

The aggression section does not read as a dispassionate fact based article. 216.144.90.230 (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]