Talk:Northern green anaconda

Northern green anaconda 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: March 13, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Amphibians and Reptiles High‑importance

	Northern green anaconda 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

South America: Brazil / Ecuador / Guyana / Suriname / Venezuela / French Guiana High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America 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.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Brazil (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Ecuador (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Guyana (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Suriname (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Venezuela (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the French Guiana work group (assessed as High-importance).

Trinidad and Tobago High‑importance

	Trinidad and Tobago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trinidad and Tobago, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the country of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.Trinidad and TobagoWikipedia:WikiProject Trinidad and TobagoTemplate:WikiProject Trinidad and TobagoTrinidad and Tobago articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Northern green anaconda appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 March 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Will Smith took part in the expedition that discovered the northern green anaconda?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Northern green anaconda.

Wikipedia

Article picture?

The article used to have File:Anaconda (Eunectes murinus).jpg (right) as an illustration added by @Haplochromis, which was later removed by @UtherSRG as being of the wrong species (as the title might seem to indicate). However, the newly discovered species E. akayima is a split from E. murinus, rather than the discovery of an entirely new population. The pictured snake, found in Northern Venezuela, is squarely in the range of E. akayima rather than (post-split) E. murinus.
As the pre-split name E. murinus encompasses both currently defined species, it shouldn't be surprising that an E. akayima would have been labeled this way at the time, and the range is more consistent with it belonging to that species. Should it be added back as an illustration, or would jumping from "E. murinus in northern South America" to "E. akayima" constitute original research? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If added back, it should be removed from the E. murinus article as no longer belonging to that species. Also, if added back, the file's description should be updated to indicate why the file's name is misleading. As for whether or not to add it back in, I think the OR/not-OR dividing line is fairly thin here. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already removed it from the E. murinus article given the reasonable doubt induced by the split. I see Haplochromis already edited the file's description on Commons, so it should be good to add back. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's ok then! XD - UtherSRG (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

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 Bruxton talk 20:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Will Smith took part in the expedition that discovered the northern green anaconda? Source: Fry, Bryan G. (2024-02-19). "Scientists shocked to discover new species of green anaconda, the world's biggest snake". Retrieved 2024-02-29.
- Reviewed:

5x expanded by Chaotic Enby (talk). Self-nominated at 22:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Northern green anaconda; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

@Chaotic Enby: Just barely 5xed. Hook is interesting. Well sourced; Earwig returns fine. QPQ exempt; please specify this in the future. Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 21:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Geardona (talk to me?) 04:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Geardona (talk · contribs) 04:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

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]

Notes

^ 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.
^ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
^ 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.

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Seems to have a little bit of science-y talk, but not too technical	Pass
(b) (MoS)	See prior, no glaring issues, needs a few more wiki-links maybe, but not fail-able over something as small as that.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Did a quick spot check, seems good	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	No problems I can see, although the one maybe reference is used in a appropriate way.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research detected	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Earwigs not detecting anything	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Despite being a little recent, covers major aspects.	Pass
(b) (focused)	Yes, no problems I can see	Pass

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

Notes	Result
Its an article about a snake, how can it have an opinion? its fine.	Pass

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

Notes	Result
No edit wars.	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)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Good job! Nothing I really can think of saying here.

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eunectes akayima is not a valid species!

Recently, two rebuttals to the work of Rivas et al. (2024) were published, in which the authors provided evidence that Eunectes akayima is not a valid species. This page should be removed or re-structured completely. The only Green Anaconda species currently recognized is Eunectes murinus.

https://mapress.com/bn/article/view/bionomina.37.1.1

https://mapress.com/bn/article/view/bionomina.37.1.2 2800:E2:B27F:FD28:34A2:1D35:E77F:9E1B (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2024 (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] Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.

[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]