Wikipedia:Peer review/Komodo dragon/archive1

Komodo dragon

After some rigorous on-and-off citing, I'd really appreciate some feedback on sections and facts that need to be cited. Also, please tell me if I should add or remove sections to better organize the flow of the article. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why is the page locked? 2. The images section at the end of the page looks incongruous, images should be integrated with the text. DrKiernan 08:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AnonEMouse

Well done, I like it. No major holes, seems thorough. I'm not a biology editor, so take this with a grain of salt, but it seems to be a long time since you got any comments, so I'll venture out of my depth. For sections, I'd follow the layout in Jaguar, a FA, I think having subsections looks better. Comments, mostly nitpicks:

Don't put a space between the . and the subsequent ref.
Too many wikilinks on common terms: Males, Females, Humans, Miles... Link the terms that are rare or particularly relevant to the article. Apex predator, yes, Poikilotherm, yes, but not Male. Don't link Inches and not Feet.
" In 1980, Komodo National Park was founded to help protect its limited population.[7]" - are most or all of the dragons in this park? Say so.
A distribution map would be good.
"Komodo dragons were thought to be deaf" - needs a cite and a date for that study. Proctor training has a cite, but needs a date.
Can you wikilink CITES?
"The hatchlings are born more or less defenseless, and many do not survive." Who eats them? Just cannibals, or what other species?
Bronstein - specify that he was invited in by the zookeeper. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have fixed many, and the map is a big help, but not all - for example, does the KNP contain all of the dragons in the wild, or just most? You really should say Bronstein was invited in by the zookeeper, which does two things, first underscores that even experienced handlers underestimate the dragon, and second makes Bronstein look like less of a fool, always an important thing when discussing living people. Still haven't specified predators other than adults - not that you say "top of the food chain", "no carnivorous mammals", so it does seem interesting. Also you are inconsistent in your use of units. Header uses "meters" primarily, first paragraph uses "metres" primarily, third section uses feet primarily, and both meters and metres secondarily. Pick one throughout. Since they're in Indonesia, and most studies seem English, rather than American, I would think "metres" would be best. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]