Talk:Crotalus scutulatus: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Peter Schmitt
(→‎Remarks on sources: new section)
imported>Peter Schmitt
(→‎A remark on style: new section)
Line 22: Line 22:


--[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 00:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
--[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 00:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
== A remark on style ==
Single sentence sections should be avoided, in particular, if they obviously belong to the same topic:
* Range + Habitat + Hibernation + Reproductive cycle
* Venom + Snakebite symptoms + Treatment
If you talk about (venom) type A and venom type B this needs explanation.
--[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 00:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:17, 5 February 2011

This article is a stub and thus not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition The lifecycle and habitat of the Mohave green rattlenake. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Biology and Health Sciences [Editors asked to check categories]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English

Any help would be appreciated

I'm sure I didn't get the layout quite right but I did manage to figure out the pink box. Copy and paste is a good thing. :-) Feel free to correct my boo-boos. I did my best.Mary Ash 05:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Remarks on sources

Sources should be chosen and selected according their relevance, and not be given a simple link, but by providing their "bibliographic data".

Reference No.1 only cites the official "Red List". Thus the official "Red List" is the correct source.

Reference No.2 is only a student paper. Reference No.3 is from a Community College. Both are, in my view, not suitable as a reference.

Reference No.4 is the abstract of a scientific talk. It should be cited accordingly (Author, title, date, where)

References No. 5 and 6 for a sentence quoted from No. 5 is not really useful -- choose the better one (while both are probably not the best possible). And: Such simple information should not be given as quote but integrated into the narrative.

References Nos. 7 and 8 point to the same article that should be cited with Author, Title, Date, Place of publication. (perhaps better in the biography)

Why did you copy "See also" items from WP? (We do not have such lists, you know.)

--Peter Schmitt 00:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

A remark on style

Single sentence sections should be avoided, in particular, if they obviously belong to the same topic:

  • Range + Habitat + Hibernation + Reproductive cycle
  • Venom + Snakebite symptoms + Treatment

If you talk about (venom) type A and venom type B this needs explanation. --Peter Schmitt 00:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)