Talk:Bear

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Bear was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
December 14, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bear/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 01:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism. All clear with Earwig's tool except for (duh) a mirror.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. I note the current content dispute between LittleJerry and Chiswick Chap, but do not see an edit war.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. No issues found.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. If anything, we have too many images here. The depictions under Literature, Art, and Symbolism should each have some accompanying commentary in-text; some do not. Likewise, the fossil images in the Classification section, while relevant to the entries they pair with, have no commentary to help readers understand the significance of the fossils depicted.
OK, we'll see what we can do here. I've documented and cited all the Lit/Art/Symbolism images; it seems right to cover a wide variety from different times and parts of the world, to show how important bears have been (and still are) in human culture. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Fixed? LittleJerry (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
7. Overall assessment.
Many thanks for taking this on. Pinging co-noms Cwmhiraeth and LittleJerry. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
No problem. I'm sort of specializing in GA reviews of vital articles lately. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Jclemens' Good Article Review expectations for Vital Articles.
  • This is a vital article. As such, it requires an appropriate amount of scrutiny, because being wrong is just that much worse, so being right is just that much more important.
  • This is a collaborative process. I offer suggestions, which editors are free to implement, ignore, reject, or propose counter-suggestions. If there's simply no meeting of the minds, there will be no GA pass from me, but please feel free to tell me to take a flying leap if I propose something stupid or counterproductive.
  • I do not quick fail vital article GA reviews. In general, even if there is no clear path to meet all the GA criteria, working with conscientious editors is almost always going to improve the article and benefit our readers--just not to the extent all of us had hoped.
  • This is not a quick process. Estimate a month, depending on my availability and the responsiveness of the nominator and other editors collaborating on the process.
  • I am not a content expert. I generally have a reasonable background in the topic under consideration, often at the college undergraduate/survey level, or else I wouldn't have volunteered to review it. Thus, I depend on the content experts to help focus the article appropriately.
  • The more the merrier. While many unimportant GA articles can be adequately reviewed by a single nominator and a single reviewer, Vital Article GA's can use more eyes, based on their increased importance. I always welcome other editors to jump in with suggestions and constructive criticisms.

Comments[edit]

  • I noted a 'mya ago' construct while I was reviewing the images. I believe that construction is redundant, incorrect, and redundant. If I am wrong or mistaken, I will go to an ATM machine and withdraw $20 for the editor who demonstrates I'm wrong... ;-) Jclemens (talk) 06:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. We certainly don't want tautologies repeating themselves all over again now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)