An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer. Note: Cwmhiraeth and LittleJerry are co-nominators.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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)
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.
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)