Talk:Anomochilus leonardi/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 09:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Happy to review the article. AM

Lead section / infobox

 * There are a few examples of adjoining links (MOS:SOB). Probably little can be done about them, but consider unlinking family, herpetologist and secondary (or moving the links apart) to help with this issue.
 * Unlinked family and secondary, kept herpetologist linked.
 * The inclusion of an image of the snake would be good. Could this one by Smith be used under Fair Use?
 * I don't think we use fair-use media for taxa that are not extinct; it doesn't meet the criteria that no free image of the species can reasonably be expected to appear, since the snake is still extant and there are obviously many people taking photos of it (see the iNaturalist page, where I've been trying to convince a couple people to change their image licenses).
 * Understood. AM


 * I think readers would find a ‘currently known’ range map useful (adapted from https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/1555/727213). I can help here if necessary.
 * I would appreciate if you made one, I'm not great with range maps.
 * No worries, though it might be done after the article is passed, if that's all right with you. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

1 Taxonomy and systematics

 * Links made in the lead should be put into the main text as well (e.g. species).
 * Done.
 * A. leonardi was described - as the main article does not follow on from the lead section, introduce the topic by amending this to ‘Anomochilus leonardi was described’.
 * Done.

3 Distribution and habitat

 * The article lacks information about the population, which is currently unknown.	Six specimens have been found (Ref 1)—some sources say five but these may be out of date. The article does not mention thisinformation. Worth adding?
 * That's just the number of specimens collected, which reflects the fact that the species is poorly studied rather than the population. If the population was just six individuals, that would be very concerning indeed.
 * Understood. Perhaps amending some specimens have been collected to something like 'of the six specimens that exist in collections, some have been collected'. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't mention how many specimens were collected at that elevation. AryKun (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

4 Ecology and conservation

 * (not GA, but a concern) I’m unclear why the species is classified as being of "least concern" when the population is undetermined. Is there something I’m missing here?
 * Somewhat common, not many explicit threats, moderately large range, and occurs in protected areas, so not likely to be threatened even if the population is undetermined.

5 References

 * This source may be of interest to readers. I would include it in a Further reading section, or incorporate it into the article.
 * Added to further reading, bit outdated for use as a ref.
 * Ref 5 (Smith) - the volumes are in series. The information needs to be amended, as this particular volume 6 is in series 11.
 * Done.
 * Other possible sources of information:
 * this from The University of Texas at Austin.
 * Will add to external links, but a bit too complex (not even Das discusses skeletal morphology in his guide or paper) for the article.
 * The NHM record for Smith’s specimen.
 * Not really useful, we already mention the type locality and the rest is just errata.
 * Understood. AM


 * , have addressed all your comments. AryKun (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

On hold

 * I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 27 August to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)