Talk:Cuvier's dwarf caiman

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cuvier's dwarf caiman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Reid,iain james (talk · contribs) 14:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a great article, and is well-referenced. Only a few comments before this article should pass the review. First off:

1. the information that is in the lead but not the article can be moved into the article as well. The common names info could be added to the Etymology section; the size and length to the Description; pet trade info can be added to the Captive care or Status and conservation sections.
2. the Ecology section should be more inclusive. As far as I know, Behaviour, Distribution, Conservation and Captivity information could all be included in Ecology, although the latter two could be kept separate.
3. if the conservation and captivity info is kept separate, the captivity should become a subsection of conservation, or vice versa.
4. the synonyms are not mentioned at all in the article, and a major section seems to be missing, Taxonomy. This section could hold info about the synonyms, related species, and possibly any cladograms (which I can add for you).
5. many more images can be added to the article, all on wikimedia commons under commons:Category:Paleosuchus palpebrosus.
6. also, a subsection Scalation can be added under Description.
7. the lead now needs at least a small expansion to contain info from each of the sections.

I have done most of these things and will work on a taxonomy section. I didn't think the other images on Commons would enhance the article much. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I will stop here for now as these are important changes, and I am putting the review on hold, although I will still give advice and comments. IJReid (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on this GA review. I will work on the points you raise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

For now, I am going to correct the taxon box to a more appealing format. You can revert me if necessary. IJReid (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that the article is missing information, as so far, no references are to peer-reviewed journal articles. You can check over or use any of the articles from this Google Scholar search, and specific ones I will list under here. IJReid (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

1. - Zilca Campos; Tânia Sanaiotti; William E. Magnusson (2010). "Maximum size of dwarf caiman, Paleosuchus palpebrosus (Cuvier, 1807), in the Amazon and habitats surrounding the Pantanal, Brazil" Amphibia-Reptilia 31(3): 439–442 doi:10.1163/156853810791769392 ISSN 0173-5373.

I had in fact used that journal article but had forgotten to add the title when filling in the citation template. I had also checked in Google Scholar but had not found anything else I thought useful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

In case of the addition of a Taxonomy section soon, I have found a 2006 cladogram of Crocodylia and extracted the Alligatoridae, adding the phylogeny on my sandbox. You can copy-paste it into the article, or specify to me where it should go. IJReid (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added taxonomy to the Etymology section. The smaller of the two cladograms in your sandbox could be used but will overlap the taxobox if put in the taxonomy section. Perhaps it could go lower down. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, once the lead is expanded a bit, I think that the taxon box might not overlap too much. Until then, where would you request I add the cladogram? IJReid (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead a bit so I should think you could add the cladogram now underneath the taxobox. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Cladogram added, and the article meets the GA criteria. IJReid (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead image swap & then move

I've moved the previous lead image (here) to #Description and added a relevant caption. @Esagurton, HCA: I recognize that I used a justification for reversion along the lines of the previous image's species characteristics, so I can't fault that being used for a different one… but I do want to point out that the new lead image (here) is of lesser quality. And neither reasoning may be helpful to readers, as the lead doesn't discuss description detail beyond size.

Both the new image and the image I've just swapped out of #Behavior and ecology—File:Dwarf Caiman in Paignton Zoo.jpg—might be more appropriate in #Description than the head, as scutes are discussed quite extensively for identification purposes. If that characteristic was demonstrated with an image in #Description, a higher quality image could be used as the lead. The only other one on commons of nice quality that still shows the species well is this one I think, by the same author as the head close up but zoomed out: File:Paleosuchus palpebrosus Prague 2011 3.jpg. I can also do an off-commons search if anyone agrees with this endeavor. – Rhinopias (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't much care for the new lead image and would prefer to use the zoomed out file (Prague 2011 3) you suggest above. By all means search online for other image possibilities if you wish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm up for a new main image, if there's a better one. I just find that simple head-shots aren't terribly informative. The best case would be a whole-body shot of an adult with something else in view that gives an idea of scale. HCA (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

There aren't any good full shots on Commons (with the exception of File:Dwarf Caiman in Paignton Zoo.jpg, which is too far out), and practically none appropriately licensed on Flickr. File:Dwarf Caiman white background.jpg, a derivative of the image just mentioned, is nice but also doesn't look great in the infobox.

Would you agree with File:Paleosuchus palpebrosus Prague 2011 3.jpg being used in the infobox (it's more than just a head shot but similar), and either that derivative one above or a crop of File:Paleosuchus palpebrosus Trachemys scripta elegans.jpg used in #Description to demonstrate rows of osteoderms? I understand that showing more of the species is preferable in the first instance, but I'm not grasping the justification of using a low-res and poorly cropped image as representative of the article/species when a good image exists. As long as a full body shot is present in the article, it allows the reader to more easily understand #Description if they choose to examine the topic further. – Rhinopias (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I would really not like to use File:Paleosuchus palpebrosus Prague 2011 3.jpg at all, because I'm not 100% sure it isn't P. trigonatus and the snout shape due to viewing angle. It probably is, but I'm only maybe 75% sure that it's P. palpebrosus, which isn't great for a taxobox image. These two species are *very* similar and there are a TON of misidentified photos of them online - I've even seen the wrong names being used when they're being sold in the pet trade. HCA (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I've contacted the author of the three related image on Commons at commons:User talk:Karelj#Question about species identification and they said that one of the originals (second photo at File:Paleosuchus palpebrosus Prague 2011 2.jpg) has the museum's label in it prior to being cropped. Their statement of the animal looking the same as others in the category isn't helpful for this discussion, obviously, but the exhibit is unlikely to include both species of Paleosuchus.. – Rhinopias (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

In that case, go for it. I just wanted to be 100% sure. HCA (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

OK – how's that? I used the derivative one (File:Dwarf Caiman white background.jpg) in place of File:Paleosuchus palpebrosus - Flickr - Dick Culbert.jpg in #Description and blew it up. I think it looks sort of funny on my screen, but with the paragraph being at the end of the section (and the cladogram) I think a left-aligned thumbnail looks worse. – Rhinopias (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks! HCA (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Nice table! – Rhinopias (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for tracking down good photos! HCA (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)