Talk:Yellow-lipped sea krait

Yellow-lipped sea krait has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 10, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

	Yellow-lipped sea krait is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tambayan Philippines Low‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

A fact from Yellow-lipped sea krait appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 October 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the tail of Laticauda colubrina resembles and moves like its head in order to deter predators?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Laticauda colubrina.

Wikipedia

Ratings[edit]

I changed the ratings on this article. If it is not done right, please change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.72.128 (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danger to humans[edit]

Article mentions not being a danger to divers (without citation), but isn't it also true that the snakes cannot open their mouths wide enough to get a bite on most places on the human body?

Also, it would be nice to have something on their diet, habitat, other behavior. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Description[edit]

The description section does not meet standard on WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles for description;

Description (physical, behavioral characteristics) - what makes this (group of) critter(s) different from its close relatives?

Moreover, it is unreadable to a layperson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.25.50 (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Laticauda colubrina/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tom29739 (talk · contribs) 10:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2]

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review[edit]

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Article is well written.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Article meets the guidelines for lead sections, layout, and words to watch. The guidelines on fiction and list incorporation are not applicable.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	References are presented in inline citation form.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	All sources given are reliable.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research found.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Article does not have any plagiarism or copyright violations.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Main points are covered.	Pass
(b) (focused)	Article does not diverge into other topics.	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Article is neutral.	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No content disputes or edit wars ongoing at time of review.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All images are under CC BY or CC BY-SA licenses.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	All images are relevant and have captions.	Pass

Result[edit]

Result	Notes
Pass	Article passes all the good article criteria.

Discussion[edit]

Please add any related discussion here.

Additional notes[edit]

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Respiration[edit]

One thing that the article does not make clear is whether these snakes can breathe while under water. Do they breathe air and hold their breathe while underwater, like marine mammals, or are they able to breathe underwater like fish?Bill (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Billposer: All sea snakes cannot breathe underwater like fish, as stated in Hydrophiinae, since they don't have gills. This could be included in this article anyways to clarify. Sn1per (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]