Talk:Forest cobra/GA1

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

Reviewer: Reid,iain james (talk · contribs) 16:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Well-written:
 * the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * Unknown
 * it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:
 * it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
 * Needs to add pages to non-web references and should use templates for all references
 * it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines and
 * Unknown
 * it contains no original research.
 * Unknown

Broad in its coverage:
 * It needs many more recent references and less internet references
 * it addresses the main aspects of the topic and
 * Needs more detail in the decription section to make it less like a list
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
 * Unknown

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
 * Unknown

Illustrated, if possible, by images:
 * images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * Unknown
 * images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
 * First image in the article lacks a caption which it needs, and gallery images that should be moved to the article also lack captions

One thing off-the-bat that I noticed that could prevent the article from becoming a GA is the lead, it should be a summary of the whole article, and the lead here is way to short, also, the information in the lead should be in the article so the lead shouldn't have any references unless there is no place in the article for the information in which case, a ref is needed. More to come. Iainstein (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Taxonbox

 * It is better to have an automatic taxobox than a manual one, its not needed but it would be good to have
 * The genus name should always be italic unless it is a nomen nudum (in "quotes")
 * A species can not be a synonym of itself, you have it in the synonyms box three or four times
 * Since the article is about the species, you shouldn't have a collapsible list labeled species synonyms, it is redundant
 * It has more than one common name

Article

 * The Distribution section is a little short and is just like a list
 * The Gallery is not needed, there are plenty of spaces in the article for the images