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 by SandyGeorgia 23:33, 20 February 2010 [1].

Noronha skink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Ucucha 04:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/Noronha skink/archive1

This lizard eats everything, including cookies, is everywhere, including your house, and has a slightly confused nomenclatural history. I wrote this article after I mentioned this animal in Noronhomys (recent FA) and got myself and some other people curious about the "two-tailed lizard". In preparing this article, I have read practically everything that has ever been written on the subject, resulting in a comprehensive overview of the biology of the species. The article was much improved by the superb images I could include thanks to Jim Skea at Flickr and by constructive comments and additions by Sasata, WolfmanSF, and Innotata.

Self-check. As I suggested in the recent RFC at WT:FAC, I'll briefly go over the FA criteria to introduce reviewers to some possible issues and to detail why I believe the article meets the FA criteria. 1a: I believe I have caught most of the loose ends here, and Sasata has also made some useful suggestions, but will be happy to correct any weaknesses reviewers may spot. 1b/1c: To the best of my knowledge, the article uses all available sources, and gives a comprehensive overview of current knowledge. 1d/1e: No conceivable problems. 2a: The lead summarizes the most important information from each of the sections, as it should. 2b: The article is logically structured and has long sections split into subsections for readability. 2c: The citation format is consistent within the article and with other articles I have written. 3: I believe I have avoided unnecessary detail; the article is not overly long, though longer than most of my articles. 4: Images are either PD or from Flickr and appropriately licensed. Alt text is present. Ucucha 04:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Confirming that images appear to comply with copyright policy. File:Trachylepis maculata head.png at Commons is currently pending a category check. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I edited the categories there, so that should be fine. Ucucha 16:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Just a rant... there is a reason that bibliographical entries usually use italics and other formatting, it's so that it's easy to distinquish the various bits of the entry from the other parts. I realize that it is a valid choice supported by the MOS to not use any stylistic formatting in the references, but it's incredibly annoying to try to figure out what is what in bibliographies that don't use formatting. Checking the references took longer than it should have because of that. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - Quickly, I need more time to review this at length, but it is very impressive. Perhaps I'll have to do the Noronha Elaenia or Vireo, but there isn't as much info on these out there.
  • The species was first formally described, based on two specimens collected by HMS Chanticleer before 1838,[14] by John Edward Gray in 1839. Is pretty clunky. The species was first formally described by John Edward Gray in 1839, based on two specimens collected by HMS Chanticleer before 1838. flows a bit better to my mind.
    • Yes, much better, changed.
  • Not really an objection, but you tend to use the common and scientific name interchangeably. They are, but stylistically I'd prefer to use just one.
    • I purged two uses of the scientific name from the taxonomy section, as using scientific names there can be kind of confusing. There are four other places in the article where the scientific name is used and could be replaced, but I prefer to retain them because they provide a little variation. If other reviewers also think it's better not to use the scientific name, I'll replace it.
  • The Noronha skink probably lacks native predators, but several introduced species do prey on it,[45] most commonly the cat (Felis catus) and cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis) - I've never heard of Cattle Egrets being introduced anywhere except the Seychelles and Hawaii. They are more likely self-introduced, which makes them, arguably, native.
    • Interesting point. Rocha et al. (2009, p. 459) say: "Silva et al. (2005) reported events of predation on T. atlantica by introduced species (rats, domestic cats, cattle egrets, and tegu lizards), as well as some cases of cannibalism." I don't have Silva et al. (2005) now, but as I remember they also explicitly called the egret introduced. I can't find other sources specifically commenting on Noronha cattle egrets. Ridley (1888) seems to suggest that there were no cattle egrets yet at that time. Cattle Egret says "The massive and rapid expansion of the Cattle Egret's range is due to its relationship with humans and their domesticated animals." and Introduced species says "An introduced, alien, exotic, non-indigenous, or non-native species, or simply an introduction, is a species living outside its native distributional range, which has arrived there by human activity, either deliberate or accidental." I think calling the egret "introduced" is justified because that is what the reliable sources do and it seems in line with a broad definition of an "introduced species", as the spread of the cattle egret was apparently facilitated by humans.
      • Accidental introductions means something like a skink hiding in potted plants or eggs and seeds carried in boots. In the case of birds "accidental" introductions covers birds that hitch rides on ships or escapees from captivity. This is contrasted with deliberate introductions. In contrast to both these self introductions are natural events, though they can without question be helped by humans through habitat modification or competitor removal, and most of the recent ones probably have. But the terminology of species ranges distinguishes between the two. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I attempted to rephrase the relevant sentences to avoid the issue. It's rather wordy now, though. Ucucha 00:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This isn't far off. I'll try and do a more thorough review soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments. I might take a shot at the birds myself. There is also an endemic dove subspecies, Zenaida auriculata noronha, which is another major pollinator of the E. velutina tree. There are at least a few good sources on these (I found a review of the vireo from 1994 by Olson). Ucucha 05:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comments...'
  • Reproduction probably does not occur during the dry season,[48] which lasts from August to November on the island - I take it that the December to July period is the wet and the species breeds throughout this period. If this isn't known, it should perhaps be stated explicitly what is and isn't known.
    • Rocha et al. (2009, p. 457) write: "Only one of the 21 females collected by us had vitellogenic ovarian follicles, suggesting that the period when our collections were done was mostly outside the reproductive period of the species. This is also indicated by the fact that no neonate-sized individuals were observed during the study (pers. obs.)." Their study took place in late October and early November. That is all we know about reproduction. The piece in the article was actually too strong a claim, so I changed the sentence to "Nothing is known about reproduction, except that skinks studied in late October and early November, during the dry season, showed little evidence of reproductive activity."
  • During foraging, it spends less than 30% of its time moving on average, a relatively high value for Trachylepis. Less than followed by high value is confusing when discussing the same trait! It could lead you to think that the lack of motility is especially pronounced in this species or its motility is very high. Could you clarify?
    • The actual value is 28.4%; I agree that it's better to just give that, and I did so.
  • Origin - given that the content of this section is closely related to information discussed in taxonomy why is this relegated to the end of the article? Taxanomic relationships and evolutionary history are usually lumped in the same section or adjoining sections in most texts.
    • I see your point. I think the difference between the two is that "Taxonomy" gives a historic and chronological overview and "Origin" summarizes current knowledge. In Noronhomys, the corresponding section is called "Distribution and origin", but in this case there wasn't much I could say about distribution. I think it's more informative and reader-friendly to keep this information separate, instead of burying it somewhere behind the nth scientific name the skink got renamed to. But of course I'm open to suggestions for a better arrangement of the article.
• This is all pretty nitpicky. I'll be supporting very soon. Great stuff. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again, I replied above. Ucucha 00:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great article, and one of the few I've read the whole of. I think you should check if you can find out more on the distribution, though. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support! I think I've already read virtually everything that has ever been written on the animal. Ucucha 00:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I had my way with the article right before the FAC nom (see talk page), and upon rereading can't really think of anything to add. I'll note in passing that I also like to see formatting in references, but of course it's just a personal preference. Sasata (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Interesting read and meets all FA criteria. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 17:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note; L.G. Andersson (others, too) is repeatedly mentioned in this article. Is he notable? Should he be redlinked? It would seem that someone worthy of several mentions in the article might be notable and worthy of a redlink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know. Andersson and the others are probably minor scientists who are around the threshold for notability. I thought it'd be better to keep them unlinked until and unless someone creates articles about them that establish notability; we can always introduce links later. Ucucha 22:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note; some citation cleanup is needed-- books and journals should be in WP:ITALICS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see, that page does not require that journals be italicized. The style used here is consistent with most of the scientific literature, as well as the three other FACs I have had promoted recently (in the last one, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noronhomys/archive1, you actually noted that the volume numbers should be bold while you said nothing about italicization :) ). Ucucha 22:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, in reference to your other changes in the article: [2]

• I agree that the "the" in the subheadings is ugly, but Eubulides introduced it because the page otherwise has invalid HTML. In my opinion, this is a bug in MediaWiki that should be fixed by the developers, not through introducing poorly-named section headers.
• Ananjeva et al. is a book with 245 pages. The specific page I cite is mentioned in footnote 6.
• The hyphen in one of the initials was there because the guy is called Hans-Hermann Schleich; I abbreviate that as H.-H. If his name were Hans Hermann Schleich, I'd use H.H.

Ucucha 22:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, will leave all of that to your judgment then. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! I'll ask Eubulides to comment on the headings issue. Ucucha 22:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.