Talk:Cape cobra/GA2

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 11:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I propose to review this article and will post some preliminary comments within a day or two. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the nominator is indeffed for sockpuppetry and will not be able to respond to queries. /~huesatlum/ 13:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that information. I will make some comments and see if anyone wants to step into the breach. If not I will see if the article reaches the GA criteria as it is and pass or fail it in the normal way. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

First reading

 * The lead should provide a summary of what is found in the body of the text. Currently it includes information not mentioned elsewhere and misses out things that should be included.
 * You need references for the vernacular names.
 * Some paragraphs do not contain any references.
 * "The connection with snow is obscure, but might have been suggested by discoloration of the first preserved specimens received by taxonomists in Europe." - This statement sounds like OR and needs a source.
 * " Linnaeus first described Naja nivea in 1758." - Repetition.
 * In the Biology section, you need to either use the plural or the singular, and not keep changing between the two.
 * "The preferred habitat of the species is fynbos, bushveld, karoo scrubland, arid savanna, the Namib desert and the Kalahari desert." - You can't just change from types of habitat to the two deserts in this sentence.
 * "... robbing the nests of the Sociable Weaver." - This behaviour is mentioned twice.
 * Some information in the Venom section needs citations.
 * That's all for now. If nobody responds, I will look further at the criteria in a week's time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Criteria
1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality: - The prose needs some attention. Variation in the use of plural and singular. (The snake, it, they etc.)
 * Manual of Style compliance: - The lead needs expansion and some parts of the lead are not included in other parts of the text.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources: - Further citations needed.
 * Citations to reliable sources: - The sources used appear reliable
 * No original research: - Possibly

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects: -
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. :

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: - No attempt has been made to improve the article in the ten days since I started this review. It needs more work as outlined above to bring it to GA standard. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)