Wikipedia:Peer review/Tuatara/archive2

Tuatara

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Since the main contributor, Samsara, left a year ago, and since I recently finished Komodo dragon as a FA, I'd like to start work on Tuatara. There hasn't been much growth for a while, so I'd like to ask for suggestions on what to do. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 23:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, he edited just two months ago...that's hardly "left a year ago." breathe | inhale 15:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, I misremembered. Time goes by quickly. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input from Casliber

I just started looking; the text can be tidied a bit (look at my diffs), and I will be back later. It is not looking too bad though. i would have thought a range map of NZ only was more logical than a world map with a tiny red splotch on NZ. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need to link or explain amphicoelous.
- I've removed it. It means concave on both ends, which is explained in the sentence.
add imperial units as conversions (eg. lots of fahrenheit to go in) as per MOS
- Done.

Note. I don't have any programs or such to make a range map, so I'll have to ask someone to help me with that. bibliomaniac 1 5 19:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind, I moved the range map from the conservation section up into the taxobox. bibliomaniac 1 5 19:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Searson's Comments

Pretty good! I've just worked my third consecutive 18-hour day, so I'll take another look tomorrow. "Living fossil" should make it into the Lead(Lede). I agree on the map, although someone might want to see both. Maybe a clearer presentation of why they are different from lizards? (I know it still confuses some folks). Great job on the refs and I like the detail you've gone into, overall. This will be a good one!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: Tuatara have been referred to as living fossils.[16] This means that they have remained mostly unchanged throughout their entire history, which is approximately 220 million years.[17] However, taxonomic work[18] on Sphenodontia has shown that this group has undergone a variety of changes throughout the Mesozoic, and a recent molecular study showed that their rate of molecular evolution is faster than of any other animal so far examined.

So it doesn't really fit with the original meaning of the "living fossil" notion any more. 87.165.199.229 (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you missed the part where I said I was tired from working 3 18-hour days and just want to act like a jerk-off. But regardless, all of that is notable and needs to be in the lede. The "living-fossil" is how most laymen will know what you're talking about. "Formerly refered to as a living-fossil" would suffice for me.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Living fossil thing mentioned in lead. bibliomaniac 1 5 19:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random Comments

Not sure that "lack of growth" is the problem here. There is a limited amount of literature on Tuatara, and nearly all of it in included and referenced in the article. However, there a few major ones (out of print) that haven't been used, and until then I don't think this article will be complete. Other than that, please don't bloat the article with filler just to make it longer. breathe | inhale 15:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and LOTS of the citations are not in the proper format, they are just the title of the web page. That won't fly with the FA people. I'm just not convinced that this is anywhere near ready for FA. breathe | inhale 01:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was GA'd way back in 2006. bibliomaniac 1 5 19:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input from anonymous stalker

Please remember to give credit to the people listed in Talk:Tuatara#Main_contributors_so_far (of whom you are one) as well as the main contributor (which you did) at every stage of the process. Neglecting to do so has previously resulted in sour grapes and failure to successfully complete a nomination.[1] The problem is that some people will always assume that the nominator is the main contributor, rather than looking at a sample of the contributions and how substantial they are.

Aside from what's been said, there are many items left on the todo list. It might be an idea to tackle those first, as well as recent suggestions on the talk page, such as a template for labelling the skull diagram (which is incompletely labelled), a potentially useful magazine article, and some quotations from elsewhere. 87.165.199.229 (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]