266:- 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.
174:(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.
421:
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."
420:
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
342:
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
338:
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
325:
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.
309:
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
601:
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.
438:
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.
343:
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.
448:, 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
665:
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
429:
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?
132:
496:
468:
383:
352:
168:
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
644:
417:- 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.
643:
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,
339:
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.
544:), 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.
672:
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.
318:- 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.
192:: 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.
442:
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
316:
The
Noronha skink probably lacks native predators, but several introduced species do prey on it, most commonly the cat (Felis catus) and cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis)
477:
402:
361:
40:
306:
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.
332:
says "The massive and rapid expansion of the Cattle Egret's range is due to its relationship with humans and their domesticated animals." and
30:
17:
504:
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. —
292:
The species was first formally described, based on two specimens collected by HMS Chanticleer before 1838, by John Edward Gray in 1839.
184:, 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
296:
The species was first formally described by John Edward Gray in 1839, based on two specimens collected by HMS Chanticleer before 1838.
231:
88:
83:
92:
196:: To the best of my knowledge, the article uses all available sources, and gives a comprehensive overview of current knowledge.
712:
699:
679:
651:
634:
606:
596:
570:
553:
530:
521:
274:
254:
245:
224:
123:
516:
75:
452:
th scientific name the skink got renamed to. But of course I'm open to suggestions for a better arrangement of the article.
148:
216:: I believe I have avoided unnecessary detail; the article is not overly long, though longer than most of my articles.
491:
463:
378:
347:
153:
584:? It would seem that someone worthy of several mentions in the article might be notable and worthy of a redlink.
526:
Thanks for your support! I think I've already read virtually everything that has ever been written on the animal.
427:
During foraging, it spends less than 30% of its time moving on average, a relatively high value for
Trachylepis.
390:
647:, you actually noted that the volume numbers should be bold while you said nothing about italicization :) ).
415:
Reproduction probably does not occur during the dry season, which lasts from August to
November on the island
284:- Quickly, I need more time to review this at length, but it is very impressive. Perhaps I'll have to do the
388:
Thanks for the comments. I might take a shot at the birds myself. There is also an endemic dove subspecies,
695:
630:
592:
488:
460:
375:
344:
243:
398:
tree. There are at least a few good sources on these (I found a review of the vireo from 1994 by Olson).
321:
Interesting point. Rocha et al. (2009, p. 459) say: "Silva et al. (2005) reported events of predation on
580:; L.G. Andersson (others, too) is repeatedly mentioned in this article. Is he notable? Should he be
208:: The article is logically structured and has long sections split into subsections for readability.
357:
I attempted to rephrase the relevant sentences to avoid the issue. It's rather wordy now, though.
541:
512:
334:
271:
181:
79:
212:: The citation format is consistent within the article and with other articles I have written.
688:
669:
Ananjeva et al. is a book with 245 pages. The specific page I cite is mentioned in footnote 6.
623:
619:
585:
236:
204:: The lead summarizes the most important information from each of the sections, as it should.
53:
709:
676:
648:
603:
566:
549:
527:
474:
399:
358:
251:
221:
120:
285:
185:
310:
other reviewers also think it's better not to use the scientific name, I'll replace it.
220:: Images are either PD or from Flickr and appropriately licensed. Alt text is present.
581:
505:
267:
71:
64:
433:
The actual value is 28.4%; I agree that it's better to just give that, and I did so.
328:
326:
Ridley (1888) seems to suggest that there were no cattle egrets yet at that time.
109:
545:
444:
170:
562:
459:
This is all pretty nitpicky. I'll be supporting very soon. Great stuff.
618:; some citation cleanup is needed-- books and journals should be in
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
374:
This isn't far off. I'll try and do a more thorough review soon.
708:
Thank you! I'll ask
Eubulides to comment on the headings issue.
230:
Confirming that images appear to comply with copyright policy.
687:
OK, will leave all of that to your judgment then. Thanks!
540:
I had my way with the article right before the FAC nom (see
288:
or Vireo, but there isn't as much info on these out there.
659:
Sandy, in reference to your other changes in the article:
645:
Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Noronhomys/archive1
158:
660:
250:
I edited the categories there, so that should be fine.
105:
101:
97:
57:
234:
at
Commons is currently pending a category check. –
133:Featured article candidates/Noronha skink/archive1
722:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
561:- Interesting read and meets all FA criteria. --
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
728:No further edits should be made to this page.
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
394:, which is another major pollinator of the
137:
41:Knowledge talk:Featured article candidates
639:As far as I can see, that page does not
140:
130:
180:. As I suggested in the recent RFC at
18:Knowledge:Featured article candidates
7:
232:File:Trachylepis maculata head.png
24:
473:Thanks again, I replied above.
298:flows a bit better to my mind.
1:
713:22:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
700:22:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
680:22:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
652:22:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
635:21:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
607:22:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
597:21:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
571:17:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
554:07:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
531:00:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
522:00:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
497:03:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
478:00:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
469:22:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
403:05:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
384:04:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
362:00:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
353:22:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
275:16:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
255:16:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
246:16:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
225:04:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
124:04:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
200:: No conceivable problems.
31:featured article nomination
745:
391:Zenaida auriculata noronha
301:Yes, much better, changed.
725:Please do not modify it.
56:23:33, 20 February 2010
36:Please do not modify it.
411:Further comments...'
567:Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs
335:Introduced species
294:Is pretty clunky.
520:
166:
165:
127:
736:
727:
692:
627:
589:
510:
494:
489:Sabine's Sunbird
466:
461:Sabine's Sunbird
381:
376:Sabine's Sunbird
350:
345:Sabine's Sunbird
239:
138:
117:
113:
95:
48:The article was
38:
744:
743:
739:
738:
737:
735:
734:
733:
732:
723:
690:
625:
587:
492:
464:
379:
348:
286:Noronha Elaenia
237:
86:
70:
68:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
742:
740:
731:
730:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
703:
702:
674:
673:
670:
667:
657:
656:
655:
654:
612:
611:
610:
609:
574:
573:
556:
535:
534:
533:
499:
482:
481:
480:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
436:
435:
434:
424:
423:
422:
408:
407:
406:
405:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
313:
312:
311:
304:
303:
302:
278:
277:
260:
259:
258:
257:
164:
163:
162:
161:
159:External links
156:
151:
143:
142:
136:
135:
129:
128:
119:Nominator(s):
67:
62:
61:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
741:
729:
726:
720:
714:
711:
707:
706:
705:
704:
701:
697:
693:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
678:
671:
668:
664:
663:
662:
661:
653:
650:
646:
642:
638:
637:
636:
632:
628:
621:
617:
614:
613:
608:
605:
600:
599:
598:
594:
590:
583:
579:
576:
575:
572:
568:
564:
560:
557:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
536:
532:
529:
525:
524:
523:
518:
514:
509:
508:
503:
500:
498:
495:
490:
486:
483:
479:
476:
472:
471:
470:
467:
462:
458:
451:
447:
446:
441:
440:
437:
432:
431:
428:
425:
419:
418:
416:
413:
412:
410:
409:
404:
401:
397:
393:
392:
387:
386:
385:
382:
377:
373:
363:
360:
356:
355:
354:
351:
346:
341:
340:
337:
336:
331:
330:
324:
320:
319:
317:
314:
308:
307:
305:
300:
299:
297:
293:
290:
289:
287:
283:
280:
279:
276:
273:
269:
265:
262:
261:
256:
253:
249:
248:
247:
244:
241:
240:
233:
229:
228:
227:
226:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
173:
172:
160:
157:
155:
152:
150:
147:
146:
145:
144:
139:
134:
131:
126:
125:
122:
116:
115:
114:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:Noronha skink
66:
65:Noronha skink
63:
60:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
724:
721:
675:
658:
640:
615:
577:
558:
537:
506:
501:
484:
449:
443:
426:
414:
395:
389:
333:
329:Cattle Egret
327:
323:T. atlantica
322:
315:
295:
291:
281:
263:
238:Juliancolton
235:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
177:
176:
169:
167:
154:Citation bot
118:
69:
54:SandyGeorgia
49:
47:
35:
28:
396:E. velutina
186:FA criteria
620:WP:ITALICS
445:Noronhomys
178:Self-check
171:Noronhomys
582:redlinked
542:talk page
666:headers.
517:Contribs
507:innotata
282:Comments
268:Ealdgyth
264:Comments
149:Analysis
50:promoted
691:Georgia
641:require
626:Georgia
588:Georgia
559:Support
538:Support
502:Support
485:Support
141:Toolbox
89:protect
84:history
710:Ucucha
677:Ucucha
649:Ucucha
604:Ucucha
546:Sasata
528:Ucucha
475:Ucucha
400:Ucucha
359:Ucucha
252:Ucucha
222:Ucucha
182:WT:FAC
121:Ucucha
93:delete
689:Sandy
624:Sandy
586:Sandy
487:now.
198:1d/1e
194:1b/1c
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
696:Talk
631:Talk
616:Note
593:Talk
578:Note
550:talk
513:Talk
493:talk
465:talk
380:talk
349:talk
272:Talk
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
622:.
563:mav
52:by
698:)
633:)
595:)
569:)
552:)
515:•
270:-
242:|
210:2c
206:2b
202:2a
190:1a
188:.
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
59:.
33:.
694:(
629:(
591:(
565:(
548:(
519:)
511:(
450:n
218:4
214:3
112:)
74:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.