Talk:Agkistrodon piscivorus/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Agkistrodon piscivorus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 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 little
 * Link 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 units
 * cc 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)