Wikipedia:Peer review/Frill-necked Lizard/archive1

Frill-necked Lizard edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… -I would like to know what else should be included -I am in need of asistance on syntax

Thanks, Deoxyribonucleicowen (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick thoughts: Sasata (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

haven't mentioned distribution in the lead
there's no need to cite a fact in the lead if it's non-controversial, and it should be cited in the article text anyway
currently, the lead reads like a "Description" section, which would normally follow the lead, I suggest taking this info out and putting it into a new section. See WP:Lead for more details on how to create a good lead.
Who named the species? What year? What publication?
Suggest changing "Habitat" section to "Distribution and habitat", and going into more detail about where the species is found. Eg., the article says that it's "... found mainly in the northern regions of Australia and southern New Guinea.", but as a reader I'd want to know if it's been found anywhere else as well.
"One of the most intriguing facts noted by scientists..." Leave out the fact that it's intriguing, unless you can source it to someone else who's actually said that. For an encyclopedia, the facts just need to be presented plainly without interjecting your personal opinions.
more wikilinks are needed. For the Habitat section, I'd wlink: savannah, arboreal; in the Diet section, link insectivorous, cicadas, beetles, ants, termites, agamids, alates, etc. Anything that's not too obvious, but may help the reader understand the contents of this article better.
last half of Habitat section needs a ref
use an endash for number ranges (degrees Celsius, clutch size, page numbers, etc.); see dash
References should be consolidated so as not to repeat the same reference over and over
Decide whether to put refs before or after punctuation (I prefer refs after punctuation, but doesn't really matter as long as it's consistent throughout the article).
Only the first word of section heading should be capitalized (unless there's a proper name in there)... see "Reproduction and Sexual Dimorphism"
"Reproduction and Sexual Dimorphism" section needs refs for last half
The four tacked-on sources in the References should be cited, not just listed. If they weren't used, then don't list them. But they look very relevant, so they should be consulted and used.
The "In culture" section needs a lot more refs as well.

I should also add that these types of sections are generally frowned upon in good and featured articles... to make it work it would have to be really well-written and sourced, and exceptionally relevant... otherwise it's probably a better idea to think of ditching it.

what's the lifespan of these creatures?
No mention of people using these animals as pets
The article seems weak on the research side of things, as there's a number of interesting studies about the species that haven't been mentioned here.
A copyedit is required; here's a sampling of errors:

"has lead some scientist to hypothesise more then one species"

"Within aforementioned regions..."

"may be a product of the lizards diet"

"...differ phenotipically."

"In the case of the this lizard..."