Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Komodo dragon

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:07, 30 March 2008.

Komodo dragon

edit
previous FAC
Check external links

This is a self-nomination. I've worked on this article for more than a year, due to my procrastination. I've managed to pull it together recently, though, and I feel that it has reached its best point. I've addressed all concerns in peer reviews and the former FAC, so I'd like to see how it stacks up now. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 21:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Extremely well done, the article has great organization and seems to fit all of the other criteria. Hello32020 (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've watched this one from the sidelines and have seen it improve considerably over the past months. I have only one concern, concerning the "venomous" aspect, as I believe the researchers in that particular case have maliciously and purposefully used misleading words in their thesis. However, as there is no published testimony refuting their studies, yet...I will not let that stand in the way of this article's promotion. The prose is excellent, the references are done properly, and the subject matter is definitely notable and worthy. About time a real dragon article was featured instead of one about pixelated dragons! Great Job!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This article is well wrote and sourced, truely good read. Sunderland06  22:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Done in a manor that I believe is very eloquent and detailed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanksfan6129 (talk • contribs) --Catgut (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Just a few issues.
    • It may be within the broad paragraph number requirement of WP:LEAD, but the intro doesn't feel like a complete, concise overview of the entire article. Can you expand it a little bit?
    • per WP:MOS#Images, your image placement needs work. The placement of the scale image in Anatomy and morphology is an example of images divorcing text and headers, as well as being crowded. The left alignment issue is also present with Parthenogenesis and Conservation. The two images in Feeding ecology (just changed to Diet) violate the stricture against having a pair of images that directly face each other on both sides of the text. Image placement is tricky sometimes, so I'll take a whack at it myself. I've dealt with image placement sufficiently.
    • Shouldn't Evolution and Dragons and humans really be sub sections (or just a single section) of History? A single history section makes a lot more sense to me. I merged Evolution and Dragons and humans in to History section, and separated the etymological information in to a beginning section on etymology. I also redacted some of the other section titles for simplicity and clarity. I'd be willing to support now, but please try and expand some of a lead a little, you might mention parthenogenesis, even if I can't spell it :) VanTucky 02:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the images is set, and I've expanded the lead. You notified me on my talk page that you don't really agree with my changes. Incidentally, I don't really agree with your changes either. I think that the images are placed rather sloppily, and that the etymology section would do better as a subsection in a "Dragons and humans" section. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 03:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppily is a rather unconstructive criticism, if you have something more helpful about how you'd like the images, please tell. And I didn't do it with intentional disregard (i.e. sloppy), I did it according to WP:MOS#Images, which says that left-right alternating can be helpful, especially when you need to avoid separating headers and text. I'd be fine with getting rid of etymology as a separate section, but "dragons and humans" doesn't sound like an acceptable section title to me, it's about the history of the animal, of which it's evolution is a part. If you go with it's history, starting with evolution and then discovery (which, btw, is kind of Eurocentric in attitude) and subsequent study it provides a more cohesive and readable through-line for the reader. The previous structure read disjointed. Thanks very much for the lead work, it looks great. VanTucky 03:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subsections describe the events surrounding the discovery of the Komodo dragon by the Western world, which is a particularly interesting and important section. Also note that "Conservation" and "In captivity" does not really fall under history. I am not opposed to the etymology section, nor did I remove it, but I just think that it works much better as a second-level heading later down. I do, however, like the simplification of section headings, that was much clearer. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 03:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conservation efforts/status and the history of the animal in captivity is part of its history. The fact that it's primarily in relation to mankind is a given, and to state so in the section header is a redundancy imo. I didn't see where you put the etymology, so apologies; put it somewhere else if you like. VanTucky 03:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right then, I see your point. However, I'd like to move the images so that they don't seem off-center in the sections. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 03:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to set a compromise with the images. I've moved them so that they don't look off-center, and I've checked them with the MOS to make sure they comply. I have my thumbnail size set to default 180px, and it looks fine in Mozilla Firefox. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 03:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the body images are fine, but several of the ones you left aligned early on still violated the basic MOS images tenet that needed to be fixed: left images that move the text of a section separate from it header. Check out Sea otter for an example of the proper style of image alignment. But for one compelling exception (the image is too wide not to), all the left aligned images do not divorce text from headers. VanTucky 17:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The ref "sciam" has been moved to a different url; see here. I'll stop by to make more comments later. · AndonicO Hail! 13:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.
  • Expanding on that, a few of the links are off. For example, from the first paragraph of the lead: Komodo island is not linked, but island is; meters and feet are linked (shouldn't be). Further down in the lead (and the article), Komodo island is linked to, which is odd, as there's no reason why it shouldn't be linked in the first sentence too/instead. Invertebrates, birds, and mammals are not linked in the lead, which should be, while zoo is linked twice in the entire text, and I doubt should be linked at all. Finally, years should be linked when part of a full date (can't remember where the MOS page is, sorry); random example: September 13, 2008. · AndonicO Hail! 17:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addressed. If you catch any that I've missed, let me know.
  • You need replacement or supporting references for these:
  • Ref 13: Is that website reliable? It says it can be edited by anyone (though a bit better than wikipedia, as the edits are reviewed, but still...).
  • Yes, I think it can be trusted. However, I have backed its occurrences with other sources just in case.
  • Ref 15: Not a reliable source.
  • How? It is published by a zoo that is known for being the first in the Americas to have parthenogenetic offspring.
  • Doesn't seem to have been written with much thought; grammar and spelling errors all over. Are you sure? · AndonicO Hail! 22:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 29: A news article, shouldn't be used as a primary source (unless there isn't anything else available; maybe check google books). Major claims are based on this ref... not good.
  • Various other refs are pretty shaky, but they're not used to cite important information, so they're okay. If you could replace them, though, that would be optimal. · AndonicO Hail! 20:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, me too. Took me about 30 hours to finish all he asked, heh. · AndonicO Hail! 21:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • "A member of the Varanidae,..." Would "A member of the Varanidae (Monitor Lizards),..." be ok?
      • I've linked to it in the text. I don't want the prose to get too chunky with explanatory notes.
    • "Komodo dragons are, interestingly enough, capable" - what makes it "interestingly enough"? what is interesting about it? is it rare?
      • Removed.
    • Ectotherm redirects to "Cold-blooded". Is this the term that should be used in the article?
      • "Cold-blooded" is actually a misleading term, which is stated in the Cold-blooded article itself.
    • "and climb trees proficiently" conflicts with "as their great mass makes climbing impractical."
      • Sorry, that statement about the tree climbing refers to when its young.
    • regarding holes, these statements seem to conflict: "are able to conserve body heat throughout the night" - "usually located on ridges with a cool sea breeze". What's the source for the 2nd statement?
      • It's covered by ref 19 at the end of the paragraph.
    • mention "The Komodo dragon's loosely articulated jaws, flexible skull" at the beginning of how they eat rather than the end? I was left wondering "how?" the whole paragraph.
      • I've made it less ambiguous by linking it to them swallowing it whole.
    • So the members of Varanidae have been verified to have venom, but so far only observation has been used with the komodo dragon?
    • How is the venom produced?
    • Should venom be mentioned in "Anatomy and morphology"?
      • The venom part is not exactly conclusive. More information may come, but so far, that's all they've been able to figure out. Also, anatomy and morphology refers to the structure of the Komodo dragon, so the venom wouldn't fit there.
    • Is the short form "Komodo" or "dragon" or "monitor" I see all three used. Should probably be consistent.
      • I have it so that it isn't repetitive, as opposed to hammering in "Komodo dragon" a hundred times.
        • Repetition of the subject's name is common in all articles. An example of another animal having multiple names, but the article using only one is the FA article Cougar. Should we see if anyone else has a comment?
          • Fixed. Changed to "Komodo dragon" or switched with a pronoun.
    • Are there any other islands besides padar that they formerly inhabited? Should ...and formerly padar... be in the island lists?
      • It fits best in Conservation. I've mentioned in the Evolution section that the Komodo dragon's range extended even to Timor. Since they don't inhabit these islands anymore, I don't think it's needed.
    • The list of island is in 3 spots: intro, Ecology and Conservation. Is this desired?
      • I've removed the mention in the Ecology section. I've kept the lead one (per WP:LEAD) and the Conservation ones, which lists the population numbers.
    • Why is Monitor lizard in the see also list? It's linked via Varanidae. I still believe that this should be mentioned.
      • Mentioned and removed from see also.
        • Thank you very much.
    • Why is Megalania prisca and European dragon in the see also list? Neither seems very linked with the subject.
      • Megalania prisca is another example of an enormous monitor lizard that formerly lived in Australia. The two are often compared. As for the European dragon, it is the origin of the Komodo dragon's name.
    • Thats all my comments. -Ravedave (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I like a lot, the article is exemplary --Hadseys ChatContribs 01:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The only thing that I would like to see different is the many appearences of the words "Komodo dragons" in the lead which seem unelegant in many consecutive sentences - However I can understand that it is difficult to find a better solution. A very fine and well structured article that deserve FA-status.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find the history section to be very strange, covering too many unrelated topics. I would put evolution near the beginning of the article, then another section for discovery and study, and another section for conservation and captive animals. Mangostar (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.
  • Comment Okay, I've started to read it now. Here are a few things I've spotted:
  • Maybe change the phrasing here: "They are protected under Indonesian law and a national park, Komodo National Park, was founded in order to protect them."
    • Rephrased.
  • Explain a bit more in this sentence: "This creates an ideal culture for the virulent bacteria that live in their mouths." Why do they want bacteria in their mouths in the first place?
    • A more careful reading should answer this question: "These bacteria cause septicemia in their victim; if an initial bite does not kill the prey animal and it escapes, it will commonly succumb within a week to the resulting infection."
      • Yes, but that's further down in the article; the sentence I mentioned stands pretty much alone.
  • "With the help of a favorable wind and their habit of swinging their head from side to side as they walk, they may be able to detect carrion from 4–9.5 kilometres (2.5–6 mi) away." Is their swinging their heads a habit?
    • Yes.
  • "As Komodo dragons mature, their claws are used primarily as weapons, as their great mass makes climbing impractical." I think that might be an incorrect use of "mass;" do you mean "weight," or "size"?
    • Changed to size.
  • "Although they eat mostly carrion, studies show that they also hunt live prey with a stealthy approach followed by a sudden short charge. When suitable prey arrives near a dragon's ambush site, it will suddenly charge at the animal and go for the underside or the throat." Two things wrong here: "studies show" is out of place, isn't needed, and somewhat detracts from the sentence. The other is the "sudden short charge"/"suddenly charge" repetition. Maybe "sprint" could be a good substitute.
    • Rephrased
  • Another sentence with an unnecessary repetition: "In addition to the assertions of venomous saliva, Komodo dragons also possess virulent bacteria in their saliva..."
    • Fixed.
  • "There are recorded examples of parthenogenesis, a phenomenon also known to occur in some other reptile species, such as Whiptail lizards." Should go in the "Parthenogenesis" section, which, in turn, should be a sub-section of "Reproduction."
    • Removed, felt a little out of place
  • This isn't cited: "Sungai, a Komodo dragon at London Zoo, laid a clutch of eggs in early 2006 after being separated from males for more than two years. Scientists initially assumed that she had been able to store sperm from her earlier encounter with a male, an adaptation known as superfecundation."
    • Cited.
  • "Widespread notoriety came after 1912, in which Peter Ouwens, the director of the Zoological Museum at Bogor, Java, published a paper on the topic after receiving a photo and a skin from the lieutenant, as well as two other specimens from a collector." Incorrect usage of "in which;" I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, but I assume it's the year?
    • Fixed.
  • "Research after the Auffenberg family has shed more light on the nature of the Komodo dragon, with biologists such as Claudio Ciofi continuing to study the creatures." Is Ciofi notable enough for a mention?
    • Yes. He is an authority on the Komodo dragon, and I've cited his work quite a lot throughout the article.
  • "Their populations are restricted to the islands of Rinca (1,300), Gili Motang (100), Gili Dasami (100), Komodo (1,700), and Flores (perhaps 2,000)." Maybe arrange in alphabetical or numerical order, unless they're already arranged according to something else?
    • Fixed. Organized from least to greatest.
  • "However, there is evidence that Komodo dragons are becoming accustomed to human presence, as they are often fed animal carcasses at several feeding stations by tourists." Perhaps you could expand a bit on why it's bad, if they aren't being harmed? Not very well explained, and it should be, considering the sentence begins with "however."
    • Removed the however part.
  • This is a bit POV and weaselish: "Komodo dragons have long been great zoo attractions, where their size and reputation make them popular exhibits."
    • I would disagree. Komodo dragons are a flagship species for those of Indonesia. NPOV != No POV.
  • Hope that's not too picky... · AndonicO Hail! 14:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well done, I'll support now, as there are only a couple minor things left. · AndonicO Hail! 02:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose for now - I'll add some stuff as I go:

  • I have a problem with Anatomy and morphology' - the first always makes me think of heart and lungs etc. which are not discussed here. The second makes me think of shape, which is not really discussed either. Description is the common heading name used in almost all other biology FAs.
    • Changed.
  • Also, there is a photo of the skin but no description of it.
    • I'm a little baffled by this. It's just a closeup of the skin. Am I supposed to explain the Komodo dragon's scales and everything.
  • Physiology is also jargony, why not just senses?
    • It used to be called senses, but it was changed a while back into something more jargony. I think it would do better being clearer.
  • link or explain vomeronasal.
    • It used to be linked, but it redirects to Jacobson's organ, which is linked in the text. Nevertheless, I've linked to it just in case.
  • Komodo dragons are largely solitary, coming together only to breed and eat. They are capable of running rapidly in brief sprints (up to 20 kilometres per hour (12.4 mph)), are excellent swimmers (may dive up to 4.5 metres (15 ft)) - 2 sets of parentheses looks awkward, why not the mdash or ndash?
    • Fixed.
  • Surely the Venom and bacteria section would be better next to bits talking about its body under Anatomy/Description etc.?
    • I think it fits better next to the diet section. Move if you want, but that's just my opinion.
  • ''It is thought that the Komodo dragon evolved to feed on the extinct dwarf elephant Stegodon that once lived on Flores - reword, weaselly. May as well name and describe the person who thought up the idea.
    • Named.
  • The Komodo Dragon should be singular throughout.
    • Still fixing. This will take a while. I'm fixing most references to the plural, but some sections feel awkward when changed to singular, so I've retained those.
      • I agree this is tricky. Sometimes it does go really awkward so don't worry about those too much. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It had been thought that bites inflicted by these lizards were prone to infection because of bacteria in the lizards' mouths, but these researchers have shown that the immediate effects are caused by mild envenomation. - needs rewording. First was widely held so say so, change "researchers" to "research team" or something a bit more formal.
    • Fixed.

All these should be straightforward fixes. If you disagree and put up a valid argument I will be happy to listen. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • Current ref 20 (Fry, Brian G. et. al Early Evolution of the Venom ...) lacks publisher information.
    • Current ref 23 (Chasing the Magic Dragon) could use publication information (issue, date etc) with it.
    • Current ref 25 (Jessop, Tim S. et. al Distribution Use and Selection of Nest Type...) is lacking publisher information.
    • Same for current ref 30 (Strange but True: Komodo Dragons show that Virgin births are possible)
    • And for current ref 36 (Trapping Komodo Dragons for Conservation)
    • And for current ref 45 (Transcript Sharon Stone vs the Komodo Dragon)
    • And for current ref 47 (Editor stable after attack by Komodo Dragon..)
    • Current ref 44 ("Such jokers, these Komodo dragons") has an access date but no link to a web page
Links checked out fine with the tool. The reason for giving full publication information on articles that are linked on magazine web sites is so that if the web link ever goes dead, the information to find the article in the print version is still there so the reference is still valid. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed them. For refs 30, 36, and 45, these are internet only and weren't on the respective magazines. For ref 47, I'm not sure how to cite the actual newspaper issue that it was in. The site only mentions that it was on page A-14 before. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 18:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Komodo_dragon&oldid=1138465315"