Talk:Palmate newt/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Starsandwhales (talk · contribs) 22:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article! starsandwhales (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: [https://www.gbif.org/pt/species/113252836/verbatim Pass/Fail:
· · ·

• Taxonomy and Reproduction sections seem to have quite a bit of copyvio from [1]. I can't find a date on this website, so I can't tell if it's copying off the article or the other way around.

GBIF uses text from Wikipedia, it's indicated on the top of the page (though the one you linked seems to be for the smooth newt, not the palmate newt).

• There's some weird formatting with the citations, are those page numbers?

Yes, these are page numbers; I'm using {{r}} for citations.

• References look good, AGF on the journal article in French and the book behind a paywall.
• Images & alt-text look good.

Thanks for reviewing, Starsandwhales! Let me know if there's anything else to check. Tylototriton (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)