Wikipedia:Peer review/Tuatara/archive1

Tuatara

I recently looked up this subject on Wikipedia and was surprised to find a very well-written and comprehensive article. I've fixed all the obvious things, such as adding images, formatting references as inline, and reordering some sections of text. I'd like to know how you think I can improve this further. Thanks! - Samsara _contrib ^talk 16:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very well written and very well organized. Specific comments first--

Together with Squamata (which is its sister group), the tuatara belongs to the group Lepidosauria, the only survivor of Lepidosauromorpha.

~~This is a little confusing, makes it sound like the *tuatara* is the only surviving member of Lepidosauromorpha, rather than Lepidosauria. Might want to re-word to clear that up.~~ I changed that passage - does it read well now?

Testudines (turtle and tortoise) skulls were once believed to be the most primitive among amniotes, but newer research suggests this is not the case, as they might have lost the temporal holes in the skull secondarily rather than never having had them.

This is still controversial (though I personally tend to agree with it), and the placement of turtles as anapsids is used on most Wikipedia entries, so I'd tone down the langauge here to something like "...skulls are widely believed to be..." and "...some research suggest this may not be the case,...". I'd also include a cite for the relavent papers on non-anapsid turtles.

The real ribs are very special too, as small projections, pointing and hooked little bones, are found posterior of each rib (uncinate processes, also seen in birds).

~~A minor issue, but I'm not sure "very spcial" is the right phrase here. Something along the lines of "distinctive" or "unique", I think, would be more appropriate.~~ I originally preferred distinctive, since the feature is also found in birds, but now settled for "remarkable". How does that sound?

A fossil of an ancient reptile called Homeosaurus looks very much like modern tuataras.

~~Minor--Homeosaurus is missing italics.~~ Done. Slightly less minor--the two paragraphs on taxonomic history are a little out of place between paragraphs on anatomy. If you opt to add sub-headings, I'd find a way to combine these two paragraphs and the opening paragraph of the section into one subsection on classification. Made a start, do comment on flow if you have time!

Overall the anatomy sction is very comprehensive and fairly easy to understand. The only general change I'd make is the addition of sub-headings, since it is pretty lengthy. I can't comment much on the Natural History section, but I don't notice any errors or poor wording. The only other thing about the page I'd change is in the taxobox--a number of us (see talk pages such as Sauropsida and Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life) have decided to follow more modern classification schemes and use Class Sauropsida in place of Class Reptilia, so you may want to change tha for the sake of standardization (though as the tuatara is a living reptile, I'd keep th link to Reptile instead of Sauropsid, using (Reptile|Sauropsida). Yep, agree and changed this.

Have some others look it over, but once a few changes re made I think this is a definate FAC. Good work!Dinoguy2 18:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments. I agree with all of them, and will put them into practice as soon as possible. I've also asked some other people to comment. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 19:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am both shocked & annoyed that you wouldn't consider me for peer reviewing an article to do with my expertise! Shocked, I tell you, shocked!!

Front side of coin with tuatara.

1) ~~The article doesn't have an obvious piece of information: That the tuatara is on the new zealand 5 cent coin, set to be discontinued in october this year.~~ That's a brilliant little detail - thank you very much!

Isn't that the back of the coin, the front has the queen on it. --liquidGhoul 12:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2) Refs!!! 99 billion percent of the article is un cited! This is the biggest sin one could commit if attempting to get an article to FA status. If you find a piece of the information on here in a book or magazine, type it in the references! Anything! I'm telling you, finding references is the hardest thing you have to do & the most vital thing you have to do to get it to Featured status.

3)~~An easy task: Swap the external links & the references sections around, as refs should be above the external links. EG:~~

~~Refs section~~

~~Refs section should be here.~~

~~External links section~~

~~External links section should now be here, below the refs.~~ Done.

4)Great work on the pics! Last time I visited the page, there were literally 2 pictures! However, the sketch/drawing of the tuatara towards the bottom is way too big compared to the other pictures. Further, the picture of a tuatara at Hamilton zoo is too small. Enlarge it slightly. other than that, great job. Done. Spawn Man 03:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC). P.S. Scrath out my list so you can keep track of what you've done. I'll help where I can.[reply]

I find the Anatomy section hard to read, it flows pretty bad. Most of it seems like a list of features, and there is a constant use of "it". It would be best if the beginning of paragraphs begin with "The tuatara". Once you get to the Classification section, the flow greatly improves. --liquidGhoul 04:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoos

Great page, which I'm not the best placced to comment on. I would say the list of zoos is certainly not comprehensive, and seems a little arbitrary, (1st page of google search found four other overseas zoos and two other NZ zoos with Tuatara), but this should be sorted out by someone who actually knows the subject. I found three overseas ones (Chester, St Louis and San Diego) and several NZ. If you can add the fourth overseas one, that would be great! I'll deep breately and not go on a personal rant about the use of the word primitive :-). Winstonwolfe 05:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "primitive" thing, I know... So remind me, what is the proper opposite of "derived"? Thanks. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 13:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opposite of derived is basal, but that might need a ("primitive") tagged onto it anyway, since most people have never heard that term.Dinoguy2 01:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I looked at cladistics, and they call plesiomorphies "primitive or ancestral". - Samsara _contrib ^talk 13:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just woken up and found all those comments - great and many thanks! Just to appease the more strongly wording of my reviewers: I didn't write the article, and I'm not an expert on the subject, so if you want to contribute references, great! - Samsara _contrib ^talk 11:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coin subject

Hi, I submitted the comment about the tuatara coin above. However, if you read the liscencing on the picture itself, it says it "should only be used to show the coin itself, not any mural or thing depicted on the coin". Above, I only used the coin as an example to show you what it looked like. Sadly, it cannot be used in the article, as this would be in breach of copyright. So although the info can be included, the pic cannot. This matter would also surely arise at a FAC discussion too, so I'm just telling you now. Other than that, great job on completing most of my requests. Spawn Man 01:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC). As a side note, by references, I meant written, printed ones, as voters seem to dislike an article comprised only of external link refs.[reply]

I understand what you mean by references, but the fact is that I don't have any available to me.

As for the coin, I would like to avoid having a "trivia" or "tuatara in pop culture" section, as they're naff, attract nonsense, link spam and other vermin, and tend to get spun out into separate articles before too long anyway.

I'll have a think about the coin. Thanks, Samsara _contrib ^talk 03:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the fact that I want to create problems or that I want the trivia section. The fact is, is that it is the law. If you read the liscence on the photo, you'll see what I'm talking about. The article will not get featured if it has a copyvio. Believe me, I've written a FA... Spawn Man 19:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, saw you changed it after I posted... Spawn Man 19:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments, (1)the article is badly in need of citations for the anatomy section, and there are other things that really dont need then (like the list of zoos with the species; (2) There is no point reinventing the wheel, there are several featured animals and they all use the same sections (which is useful for the reader and creates conisitency across Wikipeida), see White's Tree Frog Island Fox and Short-beaked Echidna for examples.--nixie 00:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Right. I've made a start on trying to shoe-horn it into that scheme. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "name" section should be titled "etymology".
If I recall correctly, the Tuatara is significantly present in Maori, that should be in a section by itself, I think. Circeus 00:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now Sphenodon punctatus redirects to tuatara, but S. guntheri has its own page. S. punctatus should either be bolded in the taxobox and at some other point on the page or get its own article. Perhaps an explanation that the article is largely about S. punctatus is in order at some point. --Aranae 04:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]