Talk:Mexican beaded lizard/GA1

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A good read with good images and meets all the criteria overall. However, I'm going to ask for a second opinion to check whether it is broad in its coverage. Peanut4 (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be much broader. I'm not a zoologist so there may be some important topic I don't see is missing.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I edit paleontology articles, and am no herpetologist. You might want to look at Gila monster (GA already) and another GAs you can find in category "Reptiles" Although I saw no glaring gaps in Beaded Lizard's coverage, both before and after comparing with Gila monster, I thought the "Taxonomy" section was a bit light - I'd expect to see 3-4 levels of the "family tree" (phylogeny), with some explanations of the similarites and differences between close relatives. However standards for paleo and neontology may be different - neontology seems to run mainly on Linnean taxonomy, but this quickly breaks down in paleo and and I'm used to seeing cladograms with explanations of synapomorphies. I did notice a lot of poor writing. I don't mean WP:MOS minutiae, which outside the scope of GA, but e.g.: ungrammatical and ambiguous participle in "First described by Arend Weigmann as Trachyderma horridum in 1829, he renamed it Heloderma horridum six months later"; ambiguity in "Except for their underside, the majority of these scales are underlaid with bony osteoderms" (the under side of the scales?); unexplained jargon "autotomize" ("drop off to distract predators"?) and "Jacobson's organ" ("in the middle of the palate"?). Hope this helps. -- Philcha (talk)

After taking some advice from second opinions the article looks nearly there. Just a couple of points to address, could you

• Take a look at the taxonomy section for levels of family tree, etc, as above,
• some of the terms listed above.
  • "First described by Arend Weigmann as Trachyderma horridum in 1829, he renamed it Heloderma horridum six months later"
  • "Except for their underside, the majority of these scales are underlaid with bony osteoderms"

Thanks. Peanut4 (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I cleared those up, either I typed those out late at night half asleep or someone else cleaned up my prose(99.9% sure thats how the osteoderms clutter happened).

Do you want me to do a taxonomy tree like in Helodermatidae#Taxonomy or a paragraph and a half like in Gila Monster#Taxonomy ?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Family Helodermatidae

• Genus Heloderma
  • Heloderma horridum, Beaded lizard
    • Heloderma horridum horridum (Wiegmann, 1829)
    • Heloderma horridum alvarezi (Bogert & Martên del Campo, 1956)
    • Heloderma horridum exasperatum (Bogert & Martên Del Campo, 1956)
    • Heloderma horridum charlesbogerti (Campbell & Vannini, 1988)
  • Heloderma suspectum, Gila monster
    • Heloderma suspectum cinctum (Bogert & Martên Del Campo, 1956)
    • Heloderma suspectum suspectum (Cope, 1869)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Having taken some advice, and seeing your responses, I'm now satisfied that this meets the GA criteria. I have just noted the requested move however. If Beaded Lizard is moved to Beaded lizard, then the change needs to be reflected throughout the article. Good luck with any future expansion. Peanut4 (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Re future expansion, as a paleontology editor I usually include, in addition to a Linnean taxonomy like yours, a section "Evolutionary history" with sub-sections "Fossil record" and "Phylogeny" (this = evolutionary "family tree"). The core of "Phylogeny" wouldbe a cladogram, usually using Template:clade - see for example Opabinia#Classification. I've done a quick Google and found:

• Family Helodermatidae, which is informative and points to other refs.
• Squamate phylogeny and the relationships of snakes and mosasauroids might be useful - I think I can access the full text if you can't.
• Morphology of the nasal capsule of Heloderma suspectum with comments on the systematic position of helodermatids (Squamata: Helodermatidae looks very promising - I think I can access the full text if you can't.
• Molecular Phylogenetics, tRNA Evolution, and Historical Biogeography in Anguid Lizards and Related Taxonomic Families - and it's free!
• Resting metabolism of helodermatid lizards: allometric and ecological relationships - nothing to do with phylogeny, but they show that Heloderma has a lower-than-average basal metabolic rate for a lizard, and attribute this to its reclusive habits.

Give me a call if you need help with any of this. -- Philcha (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)