Talk:Nerodia clarkii

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

A better photo would be appreciated. Photos of Nerodia spp. all ought to show the snakes' bellies, if possible, as this is the major way of differentiating them. This photo does serve to show how well these snakes blend into their natural surroundings, however. Chris77xyz 19:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, not sure where to any that show the snake's belly, though I have looked. Alexcs114 (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Better photographs are always appreciated, but not always available. The recommendation about what a better photograph should show is potentially useful, and worth considering if a choice of photos becomes available, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Nerodia clarkii/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Edward-Woodrow (talk · contribs) 15:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review thus far!
1A: I'll go ahead and fix the grammar mistakes, as well as the apostrophe and capitalization mistakes. I'll also try and simplify the complex sentences and whatnot, old writing habits die hard lol. Not sure what a hatnote is, but i'll add those in as well, and I shall try and simplify the complex language — Though, the language is complex for a reason, as there aren't many better ways to describe it. That part on osmosis was basically a direct paraphrase from my book references that I've gotten from the library.
1B: Not sure what you are referring to here? I've noticed it's pretty standard practice to bold the subject of the article in the first sentence or two.
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I meant in the header "Gulf salt marsh snake (N. c. clarkii)", the text "N. c. clarkii" was in bold. The issue has since been fixed, so no problem there.
-----------
3: Yeah, wasn't sure how to incorporate the old taxonomy section into the new species breakdown that I created - suggestions would be both welcome and appreciated Alexcs114 (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1A fixed, simple spelling and grammar mistakes have been corrected. For the complicated portions, I've tried to simplify the language and hyperlink more things. Neonate replaced w/ juvenile, for example. The majority of the section on synonyms has a dash, so I've went ahead and added that in for the rest of the sections as well. (Looks better, IMO). Figured out how hatnotes worked and added that in, looks way better! Added more variation between this subspecies and this race,
2: I've went ahead and added a reference from University of Florida, as you can see their identification portion primarily lists different pattern characteristics as the main means by which to identify this snake. Thanks for catching that I forgot to reference it! Alexcs114 (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I see no maintenance templates, and no problems leap to the eye. This is my first GA review, so I hope I'm doing things right.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    I found one grammar mistake- ("they has a tendency"), and there are a few clunky sentences and odd word choices- "There are three subspecies of the Salt marsh snake, which are as follows:", "native range of populations". For the section on N. c. clarkii, I'd suggest adding a hatnote ({{main article}}), and varying between "this subspecies" and "this race" at the start of sentences so it isn't as repetitive. A few sentences feel a little too technical for the ordinary reader- "intergrades", "continual osmotic draw on their tissues electrolyte balance", "ontogenetic difference between neonate..."- I'd suggest at least adding some links by way of explanation, or simplifying the language a little. And I'm fairly sure there should be an apostrophe after "tissues" (possessive). Minor fix: Dinurnal -> diurnal (end of the Atlantic salt marsh snake section). Not sure why N. c. clarkii is in bold on its section header. On the other hand, parts are very well written and smooth to read.
In the taxobox, the section on synonyms has inconsistent formatting for the authorities- dash or no dash?- and the list itself is a little long. I'd recommend compressing it into a {{collapsible list}}.
Concerns have been adressed- thanks.
  1. b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Lead is well-written and adequately summarizes content. Layout is good. No puffery, promotional content, euphemisims/vagueness, weasel words, etc. (MOS:WTW)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
I'd like to see a reference that directly says "Different subspecies of this snake are primarily identified via color patterns on each snakes belly/anterior," as far as I can tell, that isn't fully verified in the body. There is certainly detail regarding subspecies' colouration, but "primarily identified" is a fairly bold claim.
  1. a. (reference section):
    References are well-formatted.
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    Listed sources look reliable.
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Earwig tool returns violation unlikely [1], manual check of online accessible sources looks good.
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    Stays in scope
    b. (focused):
    Sections on subtopics are sufficiently short; summarizing and informing without going into super-detail.
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Looks good; other viewpoints regarding the taxonomy are noted. However, they could be noted in the subspecies sections. Nevermind, not necessary to maintain NPOV, the taxonomy section is the suitable place.
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  6. Overall:
    Pass/fail:
    @Alexcs114: Excellent work on improving the article; all criteria are met. I'll make the changes to the talk page, etc. as soon as I can.

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Two red Mangrove salt marsh snakes
Two red Mangrove salt marsh snakes

Created by Alexcs114 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Nerodia clarkii; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Eligible as a promoted GA, but the article needs some copyediting I'm surprised was missed in that process (I've done a little). Having said that, that's not strictly relevant. Basic Earwig check works out. The hook needs some work. "Threatened" isn't quite jargon, but still doesn't necessarily translate to the right meaning to a non-technical reader. "Only" also isn't clarified in the source (is this unusually small for such a snake? do most people have good mental images of how big snakes are in the first place?). The article clarifies that this seems to be smaller than other subspecies, which already sound like they're on the small end -- could that be worked in? Alternatively, what other possibilities are there? And can we contextualize these in metric? I also might suggest the addition of an image, given the striking red colour scheme of some of these snakes. Finally, I note there's no QPQ, though it's not clarified if the nominator needs one or not. Vaticidalprophet 13:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a QPQ? Also I appreciate the copyedits, though I notice that one of them ( the ones replacing "race" w/ "type") and whatnot make the article less scientifically accurate. This is because all of the reference material specifically mentioned "races", as they are all distinct subspecies. I'll go through the article later and review it to ensure that no other CEs need to be made.

    Idk about the whole "only" thing, I was just trying to come up with something interesting. Agreed that an image would be neat. Don't know how to add one here. Alexcs114 :) 16:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alexcs114, I've added a potential image. QPQ is reviewing another DYK nomination, but I don't think you need to do that yet, checking -- it's only necessary if you have five or more DYK credits. Sorry about the mistake -- I must've misread that one! I've written a proposed alternative hook that gets across a related idea in an interesting way...
ALT1: ... that salt marsh snakes (pictured) can be as short as 15 inches (38 cm)?
If you're happy with this hook and image, another editor can hopefully come approve it. Vaticidalprophet 22:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vaticidalprophet No worries! I like that hook and image a lot, lets go with that. Tho the image isn't of the sub-species of snake directly mentioned in the hook, it's in the same species so it should be fine. Alexcs114 :) 23:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nerodia_clarkii&oldid=1195587044"