Talk:Virgin Islands dwarf sphaero

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Virgin Islands dwarf sphaero/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Stemonitis (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

My initial impressions are very positive, but I'll give the article proper scrutiny in a short while. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this article is very close to being passed as a Good Article. I only have a few concerns:

Language

I think the appropriate variant of English for a species endemic to the British Virgin Islands would be British English. This would mean changing all the verbs ending in -ize to end with -ise, and using colour (but not necessarily colouration), centre, behaviour, etc. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That's fair. I will implement what you list above over the next few minutes, but beyond that, I won't know what else needs changed. If you see anything, please fix it. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Taxobox

• If a species hasn't been evaluated by the IUCN, then that lack of information doesn't deserve the prominence it gains from being placed in the taxobox, in my opinion. I would recommend removing the conservation status lines from the taxobox entirely. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, since the taxobox template offers the "Not Evaluated" option, it seems more like an issue to take up with the template, not the article that uses it. I plan to go to FAC after this GAN, so do you mind if we wait to get some opinions on this there? Personally, I think it's helpful to know what has and what has not been evaluated by the IUCN, given how ubiquitous their classifications are. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

As I say, it's just my opinion, not something I'd insist upon. I guess when you work with vertebrates, IUCN ratings seem ubiquitous. For my usual field, almost nothing is IUCN listed. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I can definitely see why it would extraneous to you, then. For me, I see it as a reminder of what still needs to be studied and reported for this species, particularly among the vertebrates. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• "Despite striking differences in appearance, ..." - Perhaps explain briefly what some of those differences are. In the absence of an article on Sphaerodactylus nicholsi, we have no way of knowing. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I can provide this because the journal article in which the species was formally defined provided a lengthy paragraph on the topic. First, though, I want to make sure you're happy with what I'm thinking: If I provide this information, I was thinking about adding it as a subsection at the end of the "Description" section. It may seem a little disjointed, but launching into those details without first having read all those details about scale patterns and measurements would be very confusing. Also, the details would not belong in a "Taxonomy" section. Is that alright by you? – VisionHolder « talk » 20:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be perfectly acceptable. The description and diagnosis logically belong together. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added the subsection, but it felt redundant to me. Also, the description of the coloration pattern for the big-scaled least gecko made my head hurt, so I included it as a quote for now. (I also felt like it focuses too much on the other species, rather than giving a comparison.) If you feel it needs to be explained rather than quoted, I'll take a stab at it tomorrow after work, assuming I have any brain cells left at that point. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• "S. townsendi evolved after S. parthenopion and S. nicholsi diverged" - Is the implication here that S. townsendi and the other two form a clade? If so, either the ancestor of (S. townsendi + S. parthenopion) split from (the ancestor of) S. nicholsi, or (S. townsendi + S. nicholsi) split from (the ancestor of) S. parthenopion, which is slightly different to the current wording. The trouble here is that the source is a little outdated; one would be less likely to write about "more primitive peripheral members of this group" nowadays, in favour of "basal lineages" and so on. If you can find a good way to re-word this phrase, then please do. If not, it may be best simply to state that the closest relatives of S. parthenopion are S. nicholsi and S. townsendi, both of which live on Puerto Rico (and adjacent islands?). This should also then be reflected in the lead. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fair. I have found one journal article that may offer some phylogenetic information, but until a friend of mine can get his hands on it, I'm stuck waiting. Since we'll be waiting on the last of the images (and I need to re-create the range map as a SVG anyway), do you mind we hold out on this one for a few days? – VisionHolder « talk » 20:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm happy to wait. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If you happen to have access, the article I need is DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1991.tb04323.x – VisionHolder « talk » 05:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Damn. I expected to be able to help, but apparently Journal of Zoology is not available at my institution. Most other Blackwell journals are, but not that one. You could try emailing the author. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Description

• "The dark brown scales on the dorsal side crosses over to the ventral side (underside) and fades out." - The verb agreement is wrong here. Should it be "The band of dark brown scales ... crosses over ... and fades out" or "The dark brown scales ... cross over ... and fade out"? --Stemonitis (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this, although it's not a "band" (from what I understand), so I just adjusted the verb tense. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• "The ventral side ranges from a light gray or cream." - Do you really mean "ranges from" given that there is nothing mentioned for it to range to? Perhaps "The ventral side is light grey or cream" would do. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)d

Sounds good. Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• "... none of these scales are granular (appear bumpy)" - Granular has already been glossed, in the previous sentence, so this explanation is probably unnecessary. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks for catching that. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• "The scales on the ventral caudal (head) scales are smooth, cycloid, enlarged mid-ventrally." - I think this needs an and, to make it "The scales on the ventral caudal (head) scales are smooth, cycloid and enlarged mid-ventrally". --Stemonitis (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Images

I don't know how long OTRS authentication normally takes on the Commons. I won't be able to pass the article until the licensing for the images is clear, but I don't think there's much either of us can do to hurry it along. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I just got 2 of them approved today, but the one with the gecko on the dime is still pending. Don't worry—there's no rush. My current FAC will be another week in the oven at least, plus I have another article I want to run through first. I'm used to this whole process anyway. I commonly pick a species (usually a lemur), write to the experts for photo rights, gather the materials, and when it all comes together I dedicate a day or more to completely re-writing the article. Next come DYK, GAN, and then eventually FAC. It takes time, and I'm patient.  ;-) Thanks for the speedy review! Your comments are greatly appreciated. Also, I'm guessing that since you didn't note any issues about neutrality, then you think it sounds fine, particularly in the lead and "Conservation" section? The reason I ask is that this is a very heated topic, and I almost didn't get rights to the photos because the guy assumed I was trying to help promote Branson's project. I had to assure him about NPOV and my track record in order to get those photos, and I want to make sure I've done what I promised. – VisionHolder « talk »

No, I didn't see any problems with balance. I did see some of the news stories when they broke, so I am vaguely aware of the issues. I think you did a good job of remaining impartial. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Also, the images have all passed OTRS, plus I've recreated the range map as a higher-quality SVG (with a proper description/licensing info). – VisionHolder « talk » 05:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As I say, overall the article's looking very good. If you could drop me a note on my talk page when the pictures and text are ready, I'll come back and finish off here. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: Two very important bits of information. First the good news: I got a copy of that evolution article, and will work to incorporate the info this afternoon/evening. The bad news: To put it as subtly as I can, I will be temporarily removing the controversy information in the "Conservation" section for reasons that could hold significant implications for my professional life. I've been told that this should only be temporary, and if anything, it's future reappearance may be marked with a significant improvement in content. If you feel that this disqualifies the article for GA status, you may fail the article and I'll re-nominate at a later date when the issue has been resolved. Depending on how you look at it, it may be more of an issue with comprehensiveness, a criterion for FAC. Sorry for the trouble. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

GA pass

The article has been through DYK now, with no ill effects. I can't see any advantage in waiting any longer. This article satisfies all the criteria for being a Good Article. Congratulations! --Stemonitis (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for the hold up. – VisionHolder « talk » 08:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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.

Further reading

Below are the items from the former "Further reading" section that I have not been able to check.

• MacLean, W.P. 1982. Reptiles and amphibians of the Virgin Islands. MacMillan Caribbean, London:vii +54 pp.
• Mayer,G.C. & Lazell,J. 1988. Distributional records for reptiles and amphibians from the Puerto Rico Bank. Herp. Rev. 19 91): 23-24

I plan to review this sources (or have them reviewed) soon to ensure the article is comprehensive, and thus not require "further reading" of the article's visitors. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Do you really need the catalog number for the holotype? If kept at all, it should explain that "MCZ" is the Museum of Comparative Zoology.

The holotype is listed in multiple publications, so I figured it was worth a mention. If you feel there's a good reason to exclude the information, please share it and I will remove it. Otherwise, how do you suggest mentioing the Museum of Comparative Zoology? Should I just link MCZ? – VisionHolder « talk » 23:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• The lead says it's among the smallest terrestrial vertebrates, but the body talks about amniotes only. It's probably still among the smallest land vertebrates, but I believe there are some very small frogs and in any case this should be distinct.

I was trying to keep the word "amniote" out of the lead because I didn't want to have to explain the term. As for amphibians, don't they classify as "semi-aquatic"? If needed, I can change it to "amniote." – VisionHolder « talk » 23:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• You use scientific names most of the time (as you probably should; I doubt those geckos really have well-established common names), but sometimes use common names (e.g., "big-scaled least gecko") in the comparisons section.

I wrestled with this a lot when I wrote it. A few sources refer to a common name, but not many. Personally, I would favor switching both the text and the article title to the scientific name. What do you suggest? – VisionHolder « talk » 23:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Its distribution is considered unusual because despite its separation from S. nicholsi in Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rican Crested Toad (Bufo lemur) has a geographic range that includes both islands."—sentence doesn't make sense to me.

I guess I need more explanation... basically the the two diverged with an oceanic barrier, whereas the toad lives on both islands and did not diverge... which makes it a bit odd, according to the source. I'll try to word it better. Otherwise, thanks for the comments! – VisionHolder « talk » 23:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ucucha 16:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Does it look like a dime to you? (the picture of the lizard on the coin)

Ebaychatter0 (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It does to me. What does it look like to you? – Maky ^« talk » 05:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh OK. Dimes do have serrated edge. I was thinking of the nickel.Ebaychatter0 (talk) 07:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)