Jump to content

Talk:Archaeoindris/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 18:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate it. – Maky « talk » 20:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
review

This is a very well written article, mostly understandable even for someone like me due to your clear explanations. Quite interesting. Just a few questions about wording:

  • "deliberate climber that visited the ground to travel." - what is a deliberate climber?
A "deliberate climber" is literally what it sounds like. They move slowly and each foothold is carefully, and deliberately selected. Think of a sloth... or better yet, a slow loris. "Slow and deliberate climber" is both a technical term and also the most basic description I can come up with—in fact, that's what the team who wrote the "Slow loris" article used to describe them. I guess I could add a brief subsection about it on Arboreal locomotion and link to that... – Maky « talk » 00:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the most speciose of all the subfossil lemur" - what is "speciose"?
It means there are many species: dictionary entry for -ose – Maky « talk » 00:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Furthermore, Lamberton did not realize that the smaller femurs he instead assigned to Archaeoindris belonged to a juvenile" - I think this sentence could be clearer. Could the "instead" be removed? Or moved to the end of the sentence?
Removed it. I can't remember why I included it. Does it still read clearly? – Maky « talk » 00:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a few edits that you're free to revert:[1]
Very good edits, minus the italicizing of the family names. (Only genus and species name need italics.) Thanks! – Maky « talk » 00:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else looks good. It looks like a lot of work went into this article. I'll put this review on hold while you respond to my few comments.

MathewTownsend (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
    b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
    b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
    c. no original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    no edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Pass!
Thanks. I appreciate the review. – Maky « talk » 02:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]