Wikipedia:Peer review/List of reptiles of Minnesota/archive1

List of reptiles of Minnesota

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'll be nominating it for featured list status, but would like a review before I list it. Albacore (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Albacore (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Worthwhile list, nice images. Here are a few suggestions from a non-biologist:

Infobox and lead

The Manual of Style says to use words rather than digits to start sentences. The opening line should begin "Twenty-nine species... ".

I would consider expanding the lead in at least three ways: (1) I'd mention the names of the two venomous snake species; (2) I'd add material about the state reptile debate. Who proposed Blanding's turtle? Who gets to decide? Why was the proposal not adopted? (3) What has endangered the Blanding's turtles and Wood turtles of Minnesota?

Be careful to use the same spelling and capitalization throughout the article for specific terms. For example, the existing lead says "Blanding's Turtle", but the infobox says "Blanding's turtle". Decide which is correct and stick with it.

Lists

The Manual of Style advises generally against double-bolding. In some cases, it may be necessary, but it doesn't seem to be necessary in the first column. The links alone to the individual reptile articles will make the items in this column bold, which draws sufficient attention to them without a second layer of bolding.

Since only two of the snakes are venomous, column 4 of the snake list seems unnecessary. It fills space without providing information easily imparted by a single sentence in the lead.

I would consider adding a non-sortable "Images" column with an image of every reptile on the list. They are most interesting to see, and all of the individual reptile articles that I checked by clicking the links have nice images that you could use here.

I would consider adding a non-sortable column with a brief description of significant aspects of each reptile. For the poisonous snakes, this could include the fact that they are venomous, for example. With the turtles, it might be something about their shells or the way they move or retract their heads. With any of them, it might be something about their habitats; that is, that they are usually found around lakes or under houses or in the woods. I don't know what the particulars might be, so I am just making up possible examples.

Looking at the featured lists at WP:FL#Biology might give you other useful ideas for improvement.

References

Book citations should include the place of publication. If you don't have this information handy, you can usually find it via WorldCat here.

ISBNs should include the hyphens; e.g. 0816605734 should be converted to 0-8166-0573-4. There's a handy conversion tool here for doing this.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some further comments you might like to consider. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The headings to the tables are probably not necessary, given the existing section headings.
Spell out "S. c. catenatus" in full.
Don't set the widths of the tables or their columns.
It probably makes more sense to divide the lengths in the lizard table the other way. Instead of listing total length in inches and body length in inches together in one cell, and total length in centimetres and body length in centimetres in another cell, have one column for body length, and one for body length, and use {{convert}} templates in each.
On a related point, why are sizes only included for some groups here?
It's "Blanding's turtle", not "the Blanding's turtle".
It is important with lists like this to know how you have determined what species to include. Whose authority are you using for occurrence within the state of Minnesota? I am assuming that that's what the "General references" are for, but they might be better placed as inline references for the opening sentence if so.
"one of three species of lizards in Minnesota" should read "one of three species of lizard in Minnesota" (lizards => lizard).
A more general point, to which there may be no answer. You have told us that there are 17 snakes, 9 lizards and 3 turtles: is this a lot? How does it compare with other states? If Minnesota is particularly rich (or poor) in reptiles, why is that? If nobody has discussed this in the literature, you won't be able to include it, but any material you can find will be a useful addition. I can think of potential explanations either way (large area, topographic diversity, and the unglaciated Driftless Area could all serve to increase biodiversity, while the high latitudes and otherwise almost complete glaciation might tend to reduce biodiversity).