![]() | Snake scale 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi, am deploying a more or less full-fledged article rather than a stub. This is version 0.7 of User:AshLin/Snake scales. Request peer review. I really want this article to reach Wikipedia:Good Article status. Thanks to Jwinius for special encouragement. AshLin 11:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I now intend to add a section on tail scales, as suggested by Jwinius and a reference to Snake scales in fiction a la Harry Potter etc.
I need guidance for dependable classification/taxonomy of snake families so that the snake families template is OK>
I also need suggestions on how to progress this article further as I am about to run out of ideas. Regards, AshLin 19:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think of it, I'm not sure that you can say that large head plates have anything to do with how advanced a group of snakes is. Boids are among the most primitive snakes (those vestigial spurs and pelvic girdle) and usually lack any large head shields, but crotalines are considered the most advanced snakes, and most of these don't have any large head plates either. Then again, some of the most advanced snakes of all, rattlesnakes, often do have a few head plates, such as enlarged supraoculars, while Sistrurus are most easily distinguished from Crotalus by the fact that they have many more large head plates. In other words, maybe it's safer to just leave the whole statement out, or only quote something more recent. -- Jwinius 13:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the writing is spotty, much of the article is excellent, while other sections are not written in an encyclopedic tone. The lead section mostly makes claims about the function of scales (unsupported), when it might better summarise the topics covered in the body of the article.
An example of a problematic sentence: "Snakes can also 'hear' by sensing vibrations with their lower jaw and belly scales.[citation needed]". I am fairly sure that I can find a reference to support the statement that "Snakes can also 'hear' by sensing vibrations with their lower jaw and belly", it's the scales part that might be problematic. Is it really that scales that allow for the sensation of vibration, or is this a fact about snakes that has been shoe-horned into an article on snake scales?
The section "Use of scales in distinguishing between venomous and non-venous snakes" (venous?!), seems really just a subset of cases of the use of scale patterns in typing to species, which is covered by the section "Taxonomic importance" (which could use a better title, maybe "use of scales in identifying species" or somethting more descriptive). Having a special section on venomous vs. non-venomous snakes seems gratuitous. Sentences such as "Handling of live snakes by persons other than trained handlers for identification or any other reason is not advised." seem out of place in an article on snake scales, and typos in this section should be fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pete.Hurd ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
Some tips. First, do something about the images. Right now most of them seem unnecessarily large and close together to me. Remember that if readers want to see an image in more detail, they know to click on it, so it's okay to make the images appear smaller in the article. Also, the image of the banded krait's head can be cropped to cut out most the black background.
Second, there's too much use of bold type face. In my opinion, italic would look better for the scalation terms. Normal text would be better for the common names, or those could be left out entirely (hey, if you want to know what the animal looks like, click on the link).
Third, moulting? I believe the more popular scientific term for it these days is ecdysis. I also think this deserves a separate section, since IMHO ecdysis doesn't really have anything more to do with morphology (color and shape) than, say, eating habits. -- Jwinius 01:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I just fixed that up a bit, with a citation. Might not have anything to do with the scales, but nobody knows for sure. -- Zeizmic 02:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Skinks and many lizards seem to have UV reflective scales apart from being visually sensitive to UV. I am unable to find references to similar functions in snakes. Do they exist here ? Shyamal 10:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm putting this article on hold for the following minor things. As soon as these are addressed, the article can be passed.
Overall an interesting article to read, the above are just minor things to fix. If you have questions or when you're done, drop a note on my talk page. Also I'm going to be on vacation from July 1 through July 23, so if you don't finish before then get another editor to finish up for me? Cheers, Corvus coronoides 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Regards, AshLin 21:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I have passed this article according to the Good Article Criteria. Thanks for getting all those changes done so fast – excellent work. With regard to the bolding, that's fine with me. Be prepared to defend it if you ever take it to FA - there will be people like me who would think that the bolding is in excess. Make sure that the article maintains its high quality, and consider going to WP:AAR to get help to bring it to FA, if you so desire. Nice job taking it from here all the way to where it is now. If you have time, consider doing a review or two at GAC to reduce backlog. Again, very nice work! Cheers, Corvus coronoides 21:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The article says that snakes scales overlap head to tail- surely the head scales don't? they appear to fit next to each other? IceDragon64 23:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
There are several references to snakes being "born". Those from eggs are hatched, rather than born, and I'm not sure that "born" is appropriate even for those where the eggs hatch internally. Also "baby" snake grates. Isn't there some snake equivalent to "chick", or failing that, why not say "newly hatched? Jimfbleak 07:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Another image that may be of help. Shyamal 11:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a very impressive series of articles--would anybody knowledgable on this subject be able to put something (anything!) together on reptilian scales in general? Covering things like lizaards, crocs, bird feet, etc. At the moment this subject is limited to a single line on Scale (zoology) which lists this as the main article (incorrectly, as 'snake scales' is a bit too specific). Thanks! Dinoguy2 ( talk) 17:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see the dead links on this page. Need changing. AshLin ( talk) 17:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
This article has just undergone a reassessment as part of the GA SWEEPS. Several substantial problems have been identified and must be fixed if the article is to keep its GA status, see the reassessment here. If the issues presented are not remedied within 7 days, the article will be delisted. If there are any comments or queries, please contact me. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 20:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I was just going through some old records, and the Keeled scales page popped out at me. Probably should be merged here, I think. Mokele ( talk) 02:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() | Snake scale 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi, am deploying a more or less full-fledged article rather than a stub. This is version 0.7 of User:AshLin/Snake scales. Request peer review. I really want this article to reach Wikipedia:Good Article status. Thanks to Jwinius for special encouragement. AshLin 11:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I now intend to add a section on tail scales, as suggested by Jwinius and a reference to Snake scales in fiction a la Harry Potter etc.
I need guidance for dependable classification/taxonomy of snake families so that the snake families template is OK>
I also need suggestions on how to progress this article further as I am about to run out of ideas. Regards, AshLin 19:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think of it, I'm not sure that you can say that large head plates have anything to do with how advanced a group of snakes is. Boids are among the most primitive snakes (those vestigial spurs and pelvic girdle) and usually lack any large head shields, but crotalines are considered the most advanced snakes, and most of these don't have any large head plates either. Then again, some of the most advanced snakes of all, rattlesnakes, often do have a few head plates, such as enlarged supraoculars, while Sistrurus are most easily distinguished from Crotalus by the fact that they have many more large head plates. In other words, maybe it's safer to just leave the whole statement out, or only quote something more recent. -- Jwinius 13:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the writing is spotty, much of the article is excellent, while other sections are not written in an encyclopedic tone. The lead section mostly makes claims about the function of scales (unsupported), when it might better summarise the topics covered in the body of the article.
An example of a problematic sentence: "Snakes can also 'hear' by sensing vibrations with their lower jaw and belly scales.[citation needed]". I am fairly sure that I can find a reference to support the statement that "Snakes can also 'hear' by sensing vibrations with their lower jaw and belly", it's the scales part that might be problematic. Is it really that scales that allow for the sensation of vibration, or is this a fact about snakes that has been shoe-horned into an article on snake scales?
The section "Use of scales in distinguishing between venomous and non-venous snakes" (venous?!), seems really just a subset of cases of the use of scale patterns in typing to species, which is covered by the section "Taxonomic importance" (which could use a better title, maybe "use of scales in identifying species" or somethting more descriptive). Having a special section on venomous vs. non-venomous snakes seems gratuitous. Sentences such as "Handling of live snakes by persons other than trained handlers for identification or any other reason is not advised." seem out of place in an article on snake scales, and typos in this section should be fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pete.Hurd ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
Some tips. First, do something about the images. Right now most of them seem unnecessarily large and close together to me. Remember that if readers want to see an image in more detail, they know to click on it, so it's okay to make the images appear smaller in the article. Also, the image of the banded krait's head can be cropped to cut out most the black background.
Second, there's too much use of bold type face. In my opinion, italic would look better for the scalation terms. Normal text would be better for the common names, or those could be left out entirely (hey, if you want to know what the animal looks like, click on the link).
Third, moulting? I believe the more popular scientific term for it these days is ecdysis. I also think this deserves a separate section, since IMHO ecdysis doesn't really have anything more to do with morphology (color and shape) than, say, eating habits. -- Jwinius 01:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I just fixed that up a bit, with a citation. Might not have anything to do with the scales, but nobody knows for sure. -- Zeizmic 02:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Skinks and many lizards seem to have UV reflective scales apart from being visually sensitive to UV. I am unable to find references to similar functions in snakes. Do they exist here ? Shyamal 10:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm putting this article on hold for the following minor things. As soon as these are addressed, the article can be passed.
Overall an interesting article to read, the above are just minor things to fix. If you have questions or when you're done, drop a note on my talk page. Also I'm going to be on vacation from July 1 through July 23, so if you don't finish before then get another editor to finish up for me? Cheers, Corvus coronoides 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Regards, AshLin 21:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I have passed this article according to the Good Article Criteria. Thanks for getting all those changes done so fast – excellent work. With regard to the bolding, that's fine with me. Be prepared to defend it if you ever take it to FA - there will be people like me who would think that the bolding is in excess. Make sure that the article maintains its high quality, and consider going to WP:AAR to get help to bring it to FA, if you so desire. Nice job taking it from here all the way to where it is now. If you have time, consider doing a review or two at GAC to reduce backlog. Again, very nice work! Cheers, Corvus coronoides 21:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The article says that snakes scales overlap head to tail- surely the head scales don't? they appear to fit next to each other? IceDragon64 23:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
There are several references to snakes being "born". Those from eggs are hatched, rather than born, and I'm not sure that "born" is appropriate even for those where the eggs hatch internally. Also "baby" snake grates. Isn't there some snake equivalent to "chick", or failing that, why not say "newly hatched? Jimfbleak 07:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Another image that may be of help. Shyamal 11:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a very impressive series of articles--would anybody knowledgable on this subject be able to put something (anything!) together on reptilian scales in general? Covering things like lizaards, crocs, bird feet, etc. At the moment this subject is limited to a single line on Scale (zoology) which lists this as the main article (incorrectly, as 'snake scales' is a bit too specific). Thanks! Dinoguy2 ( talk) 17:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see the dead links on this page. Need changing. AshLin ( talk) 17:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
This article has just undergone a reassessment as part of the GA SWEEPS. Several substantial problems have been identified and must be fixed if the article is to keep its GA status, see the reassessment here. If the issues presented are not remedied within 7 days, the article will be delisted. If there are any comments or queries, please contact me. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 20:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I was just going through some old records, and the Keeled scales page popped out at me. Probably should be merged here, I think. Mokele ( talk) 02:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)