Talk:Yellow-lipped sea krait
![]() | Yellow-lipped sea krait has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: October 10, 2016. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Yellow-lipped sea krait appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 October 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Ratings
editI changed the ratings on this article. If it is not done right, please change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.72.128 (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Danger to humans
editArticle mentions not being a danger to divers (without citation), but isn't it also true that the snakes cannot open their mouths wide enough to get a bite on most places on the human body?
Also, it would be nice to have something on their diet, habitat, other behavior. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Description
editThe description section does not meet standard on WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles for description;
Description (physical, behavioral characteristics) - what makes this (group of) critter(s) different from its close relatives?
Moreover, it is unreadable to a layperson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.25.50 (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Laticauda colubrina/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tom29739 (talk · contribs) 10:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Criteria
editA good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
- (c) it contains no original research; and
- (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Review
edit- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (major aspects) | Main points are covered. | Pass |
(b) (focused) | Article does not diverge into other topics. | Pass |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
Article is neutral. | Pass |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
No content disputes or edit wars ongoing at time of review. | Pass |
Result
editResult | Notes |
---|---|
Pass | Article passes all the good article criteria. |
Discussion
editPlease add any related discussion here.
Additional notes
edit- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Respiration
editOne thing that the article does not make clear is whether these snakes can breathe while under water. Do they breathe air and hold their breathe while underwater, like marine mammals, or are they able to breathe underwater like fish?Bill (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Billposer: All sea snakes cannot breathe underwater like fish, as stated in Hydrophiinae, since they don't have gills. This could be included in this article anyways to clarify. Sn1per (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)