Talk:Opisthotropis hungtai/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: AryKun (talk · contribs) 09:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 05:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'll have a look soon. At first glance, Heishiding Nature Reserve is WP:duplinked in the taxonomy section. FunkMonk (talk) 05:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Fixed.

• Are there no other sources at all that could be used to pad the skimpy references a bit? News reports, press releases, etc.?

• Absolutely nothing in English other than the journal article describing it and taxonomic databases. According to zhwp the Chinese Forest Ministry added it to some list of protected animals that have cultural/economic value in 2023, but I can't find any English versions of the press release and I don't trust online translators to accurately translate the Mandarin name of the list.

• You don't seem to specify whether the type specimens were kept alive or killed. You have photos of them alive, but you also say they were "collected".

• Does this have to be specified? Type specimens are always killed to preserve them (expect for that one liocichla) and the article mentions the snake's appearance when preserved in ethanol, which would hardly be possible with a live snake. The photos were taken by the authors before killing the snakes for preservation.

If the source does? Otherwise, you of course can't. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Source doesn't specify whether the types were killed, just says "fixed in 10 % buffered formalin and later transferred to 70 % ethanol" because them being killed for that is pretty obvious. AryKun (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Before Hung-Ta Chang's mountain keelback's description, specimens of the species were misidentified" Unnecessarily wordy, could just say "Before the description of the species, specimens were misidentified".

• Done.

• "in the mountain keelback genus Opisthotropis" Link the genus.

• Done.

• "Before Hung-Ta Chang's mountain keelback's description, specimens of the species were misidentified as being O. maculosa." By who and when?

Doesn't seem to have been addressed? FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The chresonymy in the source mentioned three different sets of authors (Stuart & Chuaynkern, 2007: Yang et al. (2011) (part); Nguyen et al. (2018).). I think it'd be too long and not particular;y useful to mention all of them. AryKun (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the interesting part about this is rather that it was various researchers and all in the naughties (as opposed to a single researcher much longer time ago), so I think that could warrant a mention without naming names. FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

FunkMonk, tweaked, see if it's better now. AryKun (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• "The specific epithet huntai is named after the Chinese" Usually you say the species is named after, not the name is named after. Could just be "the specific epithet refers to/honors the Chinese..."

• Done.

• "The authors of the study describing O. huntai recommended" Also seems unnecessarily wordy, could just be "The authors of the description recommended".

• Done.

• "these two species were most closely related to a clade" Sounds like there is a cladogram, why not show it?

• Laziness on my part, added now.

• "while the subcaudal scales yellow with brownish black margins towards the front and sides." I guess technically you can leave out "are", but it just makes the sentence awkward.

• Fixed.

• "Other specimens of the species were very similar-looking to the holotype, but has more maxillary teeth" Seems this goes from plural to singular for some reason.

• Fixed.

• "on the under side also have light central blotches, while the underside" Be consistent throughout whether you write "underside" or "under side".

• Changed all to underside.

• "The internasal scales does not touch" Plural to singular.

• Fixed.

• "frontal scale touching preocular scales" and "than or equal to posterior pair" while technically possible, it reads awkwardly without "the" in both sentences.

• Fixed.

• "and Dawuling Forestry Station western Guangdong" Missing "in" before "western"?

• Fixed.

• Do we know anything about their diet?

• Nope.

• Usually the whole authorship isn't listed in the taxobox, rather "Wang et al." or similar.

• Done.

• Is the cladistic study mentioned genetics or morphology based? And if the former, that would also be used to distinguish it?

• Both, but I don't think the details of the genetic part are particularly useful for a generalist reader.

• You there, AryKun? FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• FunkMonk, sorry for the very late response to this, see my replies above. AryKun (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, added two responses above. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

FunkMonk, further responses above. AryKun (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, will promote it now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)