Wikipedia:Peer review/Red-footed tortoise/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
Thanks, Madkins007 (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- A few comments but not a full review
- The lead section is very short. It should summarise the main topics included in the article.
- Part of the first paragraph of the lead is about the tortoise (singular) and other parts are about tortoises (plural). This confusion of "it" and "they" is also found elsewhere in the article.
- You should wikilink or explain words with which the reader may be unfamiliar (scute, plastron, carapace etc.)
- There are some awkward sentences that need rephrasing such as "It is unknown if the 'giants' represent diet availability, genetic issues, longevity, or other possibilities."
- Another is "When they find a fruiting tree, they will remain close until it stops falling." Taken literally, this implies a flattened tortoise!
- In several places you list several things followed by "etc." I believe this is frowned on.
- The number of sources is rather small.
- Book references should have ISBN numbers and page numbers where possible.
- Journal references should have a doi, jstor or similar number or an url if available online.
- Species names appearing in references should be italicised.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you- lead section edited (but I need to go over it for 'it/they' issues- forgot about that), eliminated some 'etc.', and some other cleaning. I need to do an overhaul on the citations and am learning about how to do that.Madkins007 (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)