Talk:Common side-blotched lizard/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 19:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I will take on the review of this article. Here are a few initial comments giving you some things to do before I review the article more fully. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The lead section does not conform with the Manual of style
 * Several paragraphs are insufficiently referenced. See here for information on inline citations. In particular, the Systematics section has no references at all.
 * There is inconsistency about the use of capital letters for the lizard's name.
 * The images need better captions.
 * Measurements should be in both metric and imperial units.

GA review now on hold
Looking at the history article I can see that it has been considerably improved as part of a class project. The sections of the article concentrating on behaviour are in good shape. However the article is not currently up to GA standard for the reasons listed above. Some changes have been made since I made the above comments and the Systamatics section is better referenced now. However Criterion 3 "Broad in its coverage" is not well met. Currently the article is unbalanced with little or no information on some important topics such as distribution, habitat and ecology. Nor is Criterion 1b "... complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, ..." met. The lead does not currently provide a satisfactory summary of the rest of the article and it introduces material that is not included in the rest of the article. I am putting the review on hold for one week. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

GA fail
I am now failing this article as no action has been taken on the points mentioned above and the article does not meed the GA criteria. The Behavior section is thorough and well-referenced and if the rest of the article were to be brought up to this standard, it could be resubmitted for GA review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistent capitalization
The basis for the criticism about inconsistent capitalization of the term, common side-blotched lizard, in the article seems to have been corrected. I propose that this particular criticism has been dealt with and that this issue should be closed.

I reviewed every instance of the term, common side-blotched lizard, throughout the article. The capitalization of the term is consistent and in compliance with Wikipedia standards throughout the main body of the article. No part of the term is capitalized unless it appears at the beginning of a sentence in which case, common, was capitalized.

The capitalization of the term is inconsistent in the list of references, however the capitalization of the term here has been made consistent with the usage in the titles of the referenced material. As such I believe the capitalization in the reference list of the term is correct. --Davefoc (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that some of the points I made initially have been met but the statements I made under the heading "GA review now on hold" have not been actioned. These were concerned with broad coverage of the subject and a suitable lead that summarised its content. In fact, apart from a bot, nobody has edited this article since 6th December. I would not have closed the review if somebody had been endeavouring to improve the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)