Talk:Mocquard's Madagascar ground gecko/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 03:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Grabbing this review. Nominator is the main author and no stability issues of note. I'll get all the procedural stuff done tonight, I'll have the prose reviewed within the next day or so. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 03:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Images are now all captioned and I rotated the tallest one to take up less space. Olmagon (talk) 13:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Copy-vios

• No issues on Earwig
• I made 5 spot-ckecks, each a different source for each section. No issues noted.

Images

• All rights in order
• The images are formatted all the way past the sourcing. I'd recommend adding a gallery template or removing some of the redundant ones.
• Taxobox image is missing a caption
• Would love to see some ALT text (this is optional but recommended)

Sources

• All sources manually reviewed, no concerns about reliability
• All links active
• I recommend archiving them.

Prose

• reaching just over 7 cm It's okay if you give an estimate of the length in the Lead but please be more specific in the description section. The source states 7.1 to 7.3 cm.
• Although traditionally... Bordering on a run-on sentence
• that it is actually a species complex Clarify that it was a misclassification, the way the first half of the sentence is currently worded implies that Paroedura bastardi is still a species complex today.
• 'sensu stricto', change to 'strictly speaking (sensu stricto)...'

- the sudden use of Latin without any explanation for what it means is WP:TECHNICAL and difficult to follow for the average reader.

• here it can be found on the ground, not stated elsewhere explicitly. You can argue that it's implicit with 'terrestrial species' and WP:BLUE, but please restate in the Behavior section.
• 'extreme' -This isn't an edit, just noting that I found this in the source. It isn't technically WP:PUFFERY
• several molecular analyses specify what sequence was tested, if possible
• juvenile specimen MNHN 1899.0338 WP:TECHNICAL, unnecessary to get this specific
• with a study supporting its resurrection as a separate species WP:WEASEL, be more specific
• Specify that the cladogram is based upon a multilocus phylogenetic analysis
• Older sources commonly state Not finding this in the source
• Specify that it is found in dry forests.
• More recent reviews WP:WEASEL
• supposed records from elsewhere meaning unclear
• rranged in more regular rows in juveniles meaning unclear
• Giving WP:GALLERY a quick read, I still believe that you need to add a gallery template or cut down on the images. For instance, Lectotype specimen (MNHN 1899.0338) of the Mocquard's Madagascar ground gecko (Paroedura bastardi), representing a juvenile collected in Tolagnaro is just a less detailed version of Juvenile Mocquard's Madagascar ground gecko (Paroedura bastardi), specimen ZSM 42/2004 from Tolagnaro. Broadly speaking, 4 dorsal views doesn't add much to the article.

-A gallery would also solve the floating 'External links' section since you could place the Commons links directly below the images.

---

Looks good for the most part, just some clarifications/clean-up that needs to be done. There was a serious issue of underlinking in this article but I went ahead and resolved it. I also made some grammatical fixes, please review when you can. I apologize if I messed any grammar up, I'm still recovering from eye surgery so my proof-reading abilities are a bit limited. It's also why I took a few days to read and re-read the article. Placing page on hold. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 21:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Reworded the bits listed and decided to axe the lectotype picture (I had originally decided to add it because I thought it being the lectotype was significant to the taxonomic history, but I suppose you're right in that it's basically a worse juvenile dorsal view). Olmagon (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Olmagon, I made some more grammatical edits and added a gallery template. In my opinion, it significantly improves the layout of the article. Please review and revert if it's not to your liking. At this time, I am passing the article. Congrats!!! 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 00:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.