Talk:Forest cobra/GA2

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

Reviewer: Reid,iain james (talk · contribs) 15:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello. This time, the article is much better, and I see you have fixed my previous comments.


 * Lead

The lead has been expanded a lot since the last review, but is still not GA worthy. First off: ::The diet of the snake is already listed, and cited in the article, so the ref in the lead is unneeded and should be removed ::Again, any ref that is in the article citing the same information in the lead should be removed from the lead. ::For any weight or length measurements, undefined m or undefined t should be used. ::Any cited information in the lead that is not in the article should be added to the article.
 * Etymology

The Etymology section has not changed much. ::The species etymology should have a ref, and if it is not able to be referenced, should be removed ::Other than that, this section is fairly standard.
 * Taxonomy and evolution

This section is good, at least for now.
 * The Zootaxa ref (#3 I think) includes a cladogram of Naja relations. If could be a great addition to the article to show how it classifies in its genus. If you are not sure about the coding, please inform me and I will add it.
 * The cladogram would be wonderful, but yes, I have no idea how to code it in. Sorry! If it too much trouble, I will take the time to learn the coding and do it myself. My only problem with the cladogram is that it's missing Naja oxiana, Naja philippinensis, Naja samarensis, Naja sagittifera, and Naja sumatrana. Why that's important is that N. oxiana and N. philippinensis are the most venomous and second most venomous species, respectively, within the this genus. They are extremely well-known species (and probably the most medically important species from a toxinological point of view) and I don't want there to be any misinterpretation. I think I know exactly how/where they would be placed within the cladogram, but it's not in the paper and I'm no Ph.D. It might be a non-issue, I'm not sure. -- Dendro†Naja  Talk to me!  00:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I will let it go for the GA but it might be a problem when it comes to FA. When it comes to that, I can check if there are any references that might have a full cladogram. Many articles don't have cladograms, which I think are important, so in a GAR I tend to let a cladogram go unless I know of a much more complete/reliable/recent analysis including more taxa. IJReid (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it looks really good!-- Dendro†Naja Talk to me!  20:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Description

It would be better if a small description of scales was in it, along with the scalation list. ::For convert templates, if not in the lead the |abbr=on parameter should be added


 * The rest of the article is good, but I will go over it in more detail later. IJReid (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I addressed all your requests. If there is anything else, please let me know. -- Dendro†Naja Talk to me!  19:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a slightly depressed, tapered and moderately thick bodied snake with a slender tail that is medium in length. The body is compressed dorsoventrally and sub-cylindrical posteriorly. The forest cobra has long cervical ribs capable of expansion to form a long, wedge shaped hood when threatened. The canthus is distinct, while the snout is rounded. Its eyes are large in size with round pupils" is much to complex for the average reader, the terms should be explained and linked when possible. ::*The colour and scale info should be moved into the Scalation section.


 * So far so good. IJReid (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * After these comments are fixed, the article is GA worthy. IJReid (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)