Talk:Locust/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 22:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"Locusts are edible insects; they have been eaten throughout history and are considered a delicacy in many countries. The word "locust" is derived from the Vulgar Latin locusta." (last paragraph in lead) What does the Vulgar Latin word locusta mean? Should be included. Other than that, grammar is clear and concise. Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
	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.	Why is reference 1 about the definition of "lobster"?! This article is not about lobsters and the reference should be fixed. Other that that, references are provided for all sources of information. Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
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).	The section 3 in the contents titled "History" needs to be expanded. Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] Possibly the part about the Rocky Mountain locust going extinct could be expanded as well as more a little bit more detail about the plagues of locust across the world. Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] The section 4.3 titled "As experimental models" also needs considerable expansion. How exactly is it being used in research? What is being researched? What has been discovered using it? A little more detail would help a lot. Expanded a little. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] In addition, it wouldn't hurt if the last paragraph in the introduction is either merged or expanded by another two sentences or so. Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Neutral
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Haven't been considerable problems for at least the past year.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is a well-written article that deserves GA status.

Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Many thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]