Talk:Slender glass lizard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Behavior[edit]

These animals do not exhibit the advanced crawling mechanics of snake. Instead, the wriggle in small loops as they attempt locomotion.

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Slender glass lizard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take a look. I will make straightforward changes as I go and jot queries below. Please revert if I accidentally change the meaning. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • When you mention someone for the first time, generally best to use their full name and a descriptor, such as "American naturalist Edward Drinker Cope" etc.
  • Why is it understood to be a distinct species?
    • I expanded upon that. SL93 (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subspecies does not belong under behaviour - you can place either under description or taxonomy
  • Taxonomy is better than nomenclature as it allows us to discuss why it is a separate species etc.
  • In references section, some names are "Smith J" and others are "Smith, J." - choose one format and go with it.
    • I fixed it.
  • Regarding External links - are any worthy of keeping if we look at WP:EL?
    • I removed them.
  • It has been rated on iucn redlist - I have added to infobox. a note should be in text. see Eastern brown snake as an example of how to put in text
  • This sentence - Similar to snakes, the species will hibernate in a hibernaculum - should be in behaviour not description. Also what does it hibernate in and what months is it doing this from and does this change across its range?
    • I think I fixed it. The sources don't state that it changes across its range, but I assume that it doesn't because there is nothing to the contrary.
  • Put measurements in metric and imperial, best done with a conversion template (again, see Eastern brown snake if unfamiliar with this)
  • Similarly further reading? If these are useful should we be referencing them?
    • I removed it because it was there before I got to the article. SL93 (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say they are endangered in some states yet only mention Iowa. The others should be put in.
    • I fixed it. My earlier edits were wrong too. SL93 (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: I think that I fixed all of these concerns. SL93 (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also clear of copyvios.

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

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. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

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: - great, well done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by SL93 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - I feel like if we mention the myth, we should probably debunk it in the same breath. Also, can we add File:Slender glass lizard.jpg to this hook?
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Looks great for the most part. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @MJL: ALT1 ... that there is a myth that the pieces of the broken tail of the slender glass lizard (pictured) can grow into new lizards despite the fact that they do not? I'm fine with adding the image, but I don't know how to add it to this nomination when I didn't have an image listed previously. SL93 (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SL93: [Thank you for the ping] That's a little wordy, so maybe I am overthinking it ('cause the word myth signifies something that isn't true for the most part). I'll approve you for the first hook, and if someone sees an issue with that during prep, they'll likely let us know. Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slender glass lizard
Slender glass lizard
@MJL: This source from the University of Georgia probably uses a better term which is "common belief". It says it rejoins instead so new hook - (coming) SL93 (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT2: ... that two common beliefs are that the pieces of the broken tail of the slender glass lizard (pictured) can grow into new lizards or rejoin into a new lizard? SL93 (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: Ooohh, that gives me an idea of what we could do:
ALT1C:... that, despite the common belief a slender glass lizard (pictured) can rejoin with the shattered pieces of its broken off tail, this is just a myth? Source: Slender Glass Lizard (Ophisaurus attenuatus)
Does that sound good? (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I originally thought to add both things, but that works. Someone else probably needs to approve your hook though. SL93 (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: Hm.. I'm probably not experienced enough to know the rules on a two fact hook, and yeah you are probably right that I can't review my own hook.
New reviewer requested to review the hook and consider the possibility of ALT2. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: I actually don't know if two fact hooks are allowed. Thanks for reviewing the article though and coming up with a great hook. SL93 (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: Looking at WP:DYKSTATS, it really isn't clear to me when two fact hooks are allowed or if Frank Sinatra was just a one time thing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, as long as the hook is under 200 characters, you can write anything you want. But less is more when it comes to hookiness. Yoninah (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think even with the two hook facts the hook flows well and works, though it is true that less is more. I'm willing to approve ALT2, but SL93 I'd like to know if it's your preference to include both facts, or to only mention the part about growing into new lizards. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. My preference is ALT2. SL93 (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Approving ALT2 as meeting requirements, rest of the review per MJL. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The trouble with ALT2, the two fact hook, is that it is not bourne out by the source, which states "Glass lizards earned their name by their propensity to "shatter" by breaking their tail, often in several pieces. The common belief that these pieces can rejoin is a myth, although the tail will slowly regrow over a period of months or years." The hook ALT1C is more satisfactory. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cwmhiraeth: @Yoninah: Would it be possible to promote the original hook which was already approved by MJL until I made the obvious mistake of suggesting a new hook? The hook is in my print source. SL93 (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea, though as I don't have access to the source, I'd probably need at least the relevant quote just to be sure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: I returned it to the library after I was finished getting it to Good Article status. What about AGF? SL93 (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would assume good faith here and right now I think an assurance would be acceptable instead, but I'm erring on the side of caution this time considering the previous discussions about wording and sourcing pointed out by Cwmhiraeth and others. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Then just do ALT1C. I won't remove it from the article though because it passed GA with it in there. SL93 (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll just go ahead and approve ALT1 (assuming good faith on the source) since it seems to be more eye-catchy. ALT1C is also acceptable if there are still issues with ALT1, but my preference is for the former. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there are really any issues with the original hook, I will get the booklet again from the library on Thursday. SL93 (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Online source - "The slender glass lizard is named for its fragile tail that, when seized by a predator, shatters into moving pieces. The lizard quickly regrows a new, albeit shorter, tail. Alas, there’s no truth to the myth that these pieces somehow reattach themselves or grow into new lizards." SL93 (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting ALT0, as although ALT1 is the approved hook, I think Narutolovehinata5 was approving the original hook, because ALT1 and all the other hooks have been struck. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slender_glass_lizard&oldid=1200567165"