Wikipedia:Peer review/Anaconda/archive1

Anaconda

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that I am on my way to improving this artice. I am in hopes of improving it to Good Artice Status. Please feel free to express your comments to help me improve the article as much as possible, regardless of is success.

Thanks, Dorkstar17 (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Jakob.scholbach

I have to say first that I'm not a biologist or anything, just a layman. I think the article has potential, here are some points that have to be covered before a Good Article nomination seems reasonable.

• The lead is too short. As a rule of thumb, every section should be summarized by one or two sentences in the lead section, to give a good impression of the article content. For example, an immediate question is: you say there are three species. Please name them. etc...
• I'm not a native speaker, but is "venomous" standard English vocabulary? I had to look this up. Perhaps change to poisonous or so.
• In many places, wording is pretty lax. Examples: "the most common prey selection for this hungry reptile", "it is especially interested in other snakes"
• The "Physical description" section contains only information about the length of the beasts. What about girth, skin patterns, etc?
• Same section: opening up with "There are some debates" is awkward. I'd prefer some clean information in the first place.
• Still same section: "should be regarded with caution" -- is this your opinion?
• "Common names": you nicely give translations of some of the words. What about sucuri and yakuama? Also, all these things have to be backed up by a reference.
• "Another suggestion is that it represents Tamil". What does this mean?
• "Feeding habits" section: I don't understand the meaning of "one who has well understanding..." in relation to what's said before.
• "Yellow Anacondas" - capitalization.
• In one place you say that killings of humans are not reported, later on you say "there have been many reports and documentaries on anacondas consuming humans". This is a contradiction.
• "to reach incredibly high speeds" -- lax wording, please make it more specific and thereby more scientific. Likewise: "unaware of what had just happened". Also: "their body temperatures to a reasonable level".
• "then the snake could possibly form" -- what does this mean?
• "due to these conditions and emotions" sounds inappropriate to me
• How do they regulate their body temperature? Just moving to the shadow when it is hot? Would be interesting.
• Typos: "recieve", "using there spurs", "heath"
• How long do they live? Have there been any issues with respect to decreasing population?
• As a general matter, the article absolutely needs more references. As a rule of thumb, every paragraph should have one. This may seem picky at first, but makes the article much more credible, and also forces you as the author to make it more neat. Good luck with the article! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm just seeing that you seem to do this as a high-school project and are relatively new to WP. So, I hope I wasn't too harsh. Just keep going, perhaps have a look at Good or Featured Articles with similar topics. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Jakob.scholbach

• "Venomous" is definitely English. To say that a snake is "poisonous" is old-fashioned and dated. The difference is that a venom can only hurt you if it enters your bloodstream, while a poisons can also do damage if they are ingested, inhaled or even simply touched. In contrast, you can eat a rattlesnake, for example, and even drink its venom (providing you have no sores or open wounds in your mouth, throat or stomach), but that won't hurt you.
• Personally, I stopped watching this article after it was renamed from Eunectes to Anaconda, and I see now that a lot of weasel words and nonsense have been added ("Feeding habits" through "Reproduction"). The references are poor or non-existent. I wanted to keep the title Eunectes because that's what it should be about: a monograph describing the general characteristics of the genus. IMO, the article should not attempt to explain things like constriction that are not unique to this genus, and not go into too much detail regarding the various species. I would have liked to add more info on the general physical description (not to mention the rest of the article), but most of the literature available to me is on viperid snakes as opposed to boids.
• References? Of course! If a paragraph or section has no references, feel free to replace it.
• Common names should always be in lower case, although there are the usual exceptions (Egyptian saw-scaled viper, Everglades rat snake, etc).

As for the rest of the article, you've pointed out many problems with it. I agree: there is a lot wrong with it. It looks like more than a few people have added info to it and did not do a very thorough job. That's too bad, because that kind of work usually does not have a very long shelf-life around here. In other words, if you do your research properly, find some really good sources and use those to cover all the important sections in this article, you'll find that over the years the article will not have changed by much. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

All right. As for references and other stuff: I have no clue about these things. Amending the reviewers suggestions is actually the author's job ;) -- But it sounds you are the right one to get this article up to GA? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I also thought the article title should be Eunectes instead, with a redirect from Anaconda. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

References: start by looking in your local library for books that describe these snakes. If the books you find don't include enough specific information, check their bibliographies (literature cited) for the references that the authors of those books used (every good book has a bibliography), and then look for those books. If you find that your local library is limited, and you don't have the funds to simply order the right books via the Internet, then visit a university library -- that's where the real information is stored. University libraries are typical subscribers to the expensive scientific journals that us normal folks cannot afford -- IMO a highly regrettable situation in this age of the Internet -- but it's in those journals that so many of the articles you will want are published. Bibliographies almost invariably include cryptic references to the journal publications you will be looking for, but as soon as you discover that, for example, "Pac. Sci. 61:1" actually means "Pacific Science - Volume 61, Number 1", then you're off.

If you're really serious about researching a description of the genus Eunectes, then the natural place to start would be Johann Georg Wagler's original 1830 publication on the subject, entitled "Natürliches system der amphibien, mit vorangehender classification der säugethiere und vögel" (or preferably an English translation thereof). Apparently, that work still contains the definitive description of the genus.

Could I get this article up to GA status? Sure, but I'm not going to be the person to do it. I've already burned away two years of my life on Wikipedia and need to get my career back on track now. Besides, describing all 2,700 species of snakes would take one person about 50 years if they spent only a week researching and writing every article (not including subspecies). Obviously then, this should be a group effort, which is why it's important that people like yourself become involved. --Jwinius (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments from GrahamColm

I agree with all the valuable comments above and so there is no need to repeat them here. My current concerns are problems with the prose. I have made some example copy-edits, ([1]). My advice is to try to keep the prose simple; you have a tendency over-explain. Try to avoid expressions like "meaning that" and "in terms of" and constantly ask yourself is every word and phrase absolutely necessary. On a more general note, this is Wikipedia and praise is generally very thin on the ground. Most reviewers, including those at GA and FAC, will not say what is good about an article, because this does not make articles better. Don't take any criticism personally, if people didn't like you or respect what you are doing, this page would be blank. The fact that it is not, is a credit to you—well done and keep up the good work. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)