Talk:Solomon Islands skink/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The lead should not include information that is not expanded upon in the body - it is supposed to be a summary. This is most obvious with the taxonomy-related information. The Taxonomy section does not have anything detailing the 1997 split of the subspecies, nor does it give any further information to explain "Further study may discover different subspecies or elevate some populations to full species status." If this is just a generic fact that is true of any genus, then it doesn't really need to be in the article; if there is ongoing research and speculation on the naming of new subspecies/species, then this should be detailed (and sourced) in the article.

fixed

Not completely. The taxonomy information on the 1997 split, etc., still doesn't appear in the body. This needs to be described and expanded on in the Taxonomy section. Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Think I got it now.

~~Distribution and habitat, "epiphytic" Link/explanation?~~

fixed

~~Biology, "Males appear to have a". Why "appear to have"?~~

fixed

Biology, "Like snakes, they "smell" by flicking their tongues to gather scents and when the tongue is retracted it touches it to the opening of a Jacobson's organ at the roof of its mouth." This sentence switches from plural to singular.

fixed

In the Biology section it says "adults can reach 72 centimetres (28 in) in length when fully grown.", but in the Subspecies section it says they average 11-13 inches, depending on subspecies. Then in the Reproduction section we are told that they are 11-15 inches in length at birth. These are big differences, and make it sound like one subspecies actually shrinks between birth and adulthood.

fixed, some lengths were nose to tail tip others were nose to tail base, and someone helping out made them metric...i should have caught that earlier.

In the Distribution section, abbreviated Latin names of the subspecies are given, but in the subspecies section the full Latin names are given again. The full names should be given the first time, and then abbreviated names used thereafter.

fixed

Better, but now the only place with the full names is in the lead. Please see the first comment in this section regarding the needed expansion of the taxonomy section. Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fixed

Reproduction, "Rare among reptiles, the Solomon Islands skink reproduces by viviparous matrotrophy:". This could be read two ways: the SI skink is rare among reptiles, or that viviparous matrotrophy is rare among reptiles. I think you mean the latter, but clarification would be nice.

fixed

Threats, "Consumption for food by natives has affected wild populations" Has this relationship between the skink and the native population existed for a long time - i.e., before skink population records began to be kept? Has consumption increased? Are they consumed as a general foodstuff or for ceremonial purposes/in times of famine? If there has always been a similar level of consumption by the natives, why are we thinking that it is a threat to the survival of the species now?

Clarified. There's a three-fold problem: rapid deforestation of certain islands (at a symposium by DR Richard Funk, he said the trees were cut down to supply disposable chopsticks to Japan), demand for the pet trade, and bushmeat. They are no longer legally able to be imported into the US, I think they still flow freely through other countries, though. I cannot say if this has helped, as less animals are being bred Ex situ. There are no local breeding or conservation programs. As for the natives eating them, this varies from island to island. On some its a dietary staple, on others they won't go near them. There's really not enough in the published literature to go into a greater level of detail than its all part of the problem with the skinks, the Solomon Island Boas, and their native Mangrove monitors which are the most docile lizards of that genus I've ever worked with.

Better, I suppose. It would still be nice to get some further information on how each of the three has affected the species and if consumption has changed over the years so that it went from apparently a beneficial relationship (they didn't die out previous to this, even though I'm assuming natives have been eating them for hundreds (at least) of years) to a harmful one (now they're dying out). However, this is probably above and beyond what is needed for GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can find, the deforestation seems to be the key thing, the pet trade issue has shrunk with the closing off of export, but that leaves the bushmeat issue as a bigger threat now as there's no large scale captive breeding programs that can make a difference and there's less forest. As intriguing as these lizards are, they're not as glamorous as Marine iguanas, etc.

~~Threats, "in 1992 Corucia zebrata was listed as a CITES Appendix II animal," Has this helped at all?~~

not really, as CITES 2 still allows animals to be shipped with a permit so they are still being sent to Europe/Canada/Australia/etc. The US has a different import restriction, which means that animals that were once $75 a piece at reptile shows now pull in $1500 - $3000. They're still common pet trade animals in other countries.

In captivity - This section turns into a bit of a "how-to raise skinks in captivity" manual for the last few sentences. This should be turned into something more encyclopedic. Wording such as "must be provided" and "should not/should be" is the main problem here.

I deleted it

Hmmm, not sure if that was beneficial. I think that something of the sort would be useful, just with different wording. Something like "Zoos sometimes find SI skinks difficult to maintain properly, as they require a large vertically oriented enclosure with a closely controlled climate." would probably be appropriate. At this point we have a very short, one sentence section, which if not re-expanded should probably be combined with the previous section. Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put some of it back, in all honesty they are not a difficult animal to care for and what was there was probably a vestige from when this whole article read more like a care sheet for pet owners. They're not so specialized that they exclusively eat one plant or live only in one tree, etc and the heat/humidity/caging requirements are easily met by even entry level keepers.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
If a source is the same for multiple sentences in a paragraph, such as the second paragraph of the Subspecies section, it is not necessary to repeat the reference for every sentence. I feel that doing so clutters the article and makes it harder to read; it is, however, an individual editor decision.

fixed

~~References are not needed in the lead, except for quotes and extremely controversial statements. However, having them is again an individual decision.~~

fixed, we had a troll-type that was inserting "Common names" such as "tiger skink" and other nonsense a few years back in the lead, i moved that source and the other back down where they belong.

~~Is the article in ref 6 in German? If so, it should be noted.~~

Fixed

~~Ref #7 (Reeder) is a dead link. This can either be fixed or just removed, as it's a courtesy link to a paper publication.~~

Fixed

Taxonomy, "However, the subspecific status of Köhler's specimens has not been universally accepted, as they may simply be a variant insular population." Source?

deleted

If this is true, it is something that is important to include in the article; it just needs a source, because it is scientific opinion. Have studies been done? What scientists disagree with Kohler's interpretation? Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was talk of a paper coming out by an Australian team maybe 4 years ago and it was supposed to address this(and other things), not so much to say it was not a valid subspecies, but in fact its own species. To date, I have not seen it published, so for now its probably best to leave it out. Although, along a similar line...numerous captive breeders have had difficulties with viable offspring (self included) between animals from different islands. I put my experience in the peer review section on the talk page to explain it and detailed the only published source I could find relating this in the article(Balsai 1995). A better study is needed to see if there are in fact different species/subspecies from island to island, but my unprofessional opinion tells me its something like the situation with Galapagos Tortoises and Lonesome George. A mitochondrial DNA test could confirm this, however, I doubt we'll see anything unless the politics in the region changes. That's why I had high hopes for the Aussie paper.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
A few areas, especially Taxonomy, need a bit more expansion. Details above.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Overall a nice little article, but needs a bit more fleshing out in a few spots, plus a few prose and reference questions. I'm placing the review on hold to allow time for these to be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I got a few of these, I'll get to the rest later today.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall looks good. However, there are a few areas that still need work, and I have clarified further above - a couple of places in the prose section and one referencing issue. The needed Taxonomy expansion (and related reference comment) is the biggest issue at this point. Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, everything looks good, so I am passing the article to GA status. My final comment would be to consider continuing to expand the Taxonomy section with more information on why and how they decided to split the species into two subspecies. Perhaps the articles in the further reading section would also have further information on the initial description of the species, which could also stand to be expanded. However, this goes above and beyond the "broadness" criteria required by GAN, so I'm not going to require the work be done before I pass the article. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll keep all those in mind the next few months when I get ready for FAC!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]