Wikipedia:Peer review/Komodo dragon/archive2

Komodo dragon

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've worked on this article for more than a year now, and I've found most of the information that I need. Besides some pending expansions, I'd like to request a peer review to find what I need to fix and check up with the *shudder* MoS. I have Andy's automated peer reviewer, but you can run it to check for stuff I may have missed.

Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 I see no changes 21:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Biomedeng (talk):

vomeronasal and Jacobson's organ link to the same artice, no need to link to both
I'd suggest putting an IPA pronounciation for Komodo in the first sentence to help people know how to speak the word
Overall there are a lot of citations, but some statements still are missing citations such as:
- Because of their slow metabolism, large dragons can survive on as little as 12 meals a year.
- As Komodo dragons mature, their claws are used primarily as weapons, as their great mass makes climbing impractical.
Several of the references are not formatted properly. Try to use the citation templates and include the website publisher. All urls need accessed/retreived dates.

Overall this seems to be a rather outstanding article. The text is very well written and almost everything is cited properly. The images used the article also are very helpful to the sections they are paired with. I would work to fix the reference formatting and submit for FA status and see what people have to say. Biomedeng (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the first and third comments. I don't really think the second one is needed, though. I'm still working on the ref formatting. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Casliber

Have a look at some other biology Featured Articles, generally, having a Taxonomy and naming section under the lead is good. All material in lead should be elsewhere in article, hence all the alternate names have to go somewhere too. An example of how I laid out one before is Common Raven - the section can have all the names, the Discovery section, and the Evolution and classification all there.

Not essential but highly desirable - making redlinks blue or removing them is helpful.

I'll try and drop back later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]