Talk:Mini mum/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 21:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Hey there. I will review this. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- I did some spot checks on random lines and pieces of information and all were sufficiently paraphrased and accurate to their sources.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Not much that can be covered in the first place.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- The lead is meant to summarize the article, so I would recommend removing the exact measurements. Also, mention there that it is thought be critically endangered.
- Added the info about its conservation status, but the measurements should stay; they aren't taking up too much space, just saying very small is of very little use, and the lead is small as it is.
- That's fair.
- Added the info about its conservation status, but the measurements should stay; they aren't taking up too much space, just saying very small is of very little use, and the lead is small as it is.
- The "Taxonomy and systematics" section is a little redundant; just say "Taxonomy".
- Taxonomy and systematics are slightly different in meaning; taxonomy is the science of naming and classifying organisms, while systematics is the study of how animals are related to other animals.
- True, but other other articles (including good articles such as Chinese nuthatch) usually just use a section called "Taxonomy" which also describes systematics. Also, per our article on taxonomy: "A whole set of terms including taxonomy, systematic biology, systematics, biosystematics, scientific classification, biological classification, and phylogenetics have at times had overlapping meanings – sometimes the same, sometimes slightly different, but always related and intersecting."
- Well, that does say that the meanings of the terms are related, but subtly different. As for standardization, I've used the wording "Taxonomy and systematics" for all of the articles I've ever taken to GA and FA, which is upwards of 35 articles at this point.
- I'm still inclined to disagree with your first point, but your second is solid. I've passed it as it is.
- Well, that does say that the meanings of the terms are related, but subtly different. As for standardization, I've used the wording "Taxonomy and systematics" for all of the articles I've ever taken to GA and FA, which is upwards of 35 articles at this point.
- True, but other other articles (including good articles such as Chinese nuthatch) usually just use a section called "Taxonomy" which also describes systematics. Also, per our article on taxonomy: "A whole set of terms including taxonomy, systematic biology, systematics, biosystematics, scientific classification, biological classification, and phylogenetics have at times had overlapping meanings – sometimes the same, sometimes slightly different, but always related and intersecting."
- Taxonomy and systematics are slightly different in meaning; taxonomy is the science of naming and classifying organisms, while systematics is the study of how animals are related to other animals.
- Plainly stating its name is "humorous" is most definitely not WP:NPOV. Find a different way to word this.
- The name clearly is humorous, and has been described as being so by most media sources covering the discovery of the frogs. Additionally, there isn't really another way to write this; you need to mention why media was reporting on this obscure frog, and it's because the name is funny.
- I was thinking more in line of a direct quote, but none of the sources have one that would work, so I'll let it stay as it is.
- The name clearly is humorous, and has been described as being so by most media sources covering the discovery of the frogs. Additionally, there isn't really another way to write this; you need to mention why media was reporting on this obscure frog, and it's because the name is funny.
- Switch "Habitat and distribution" around to "Distribution and habitat" because nearly every WP article on an animal species uses the latter.
- Done.
- Just as a quick comment, sections on ecology and conservation are generally not lumped, but I'll allow it here because both would be absurdly should if they were separated.
- Spell out the full name of the IUCN and then put the abbreviation in parentheses after.
- Done, haven't added the abbreviation since it isn't used again.
All in all, not bad. May these frogs continue to survive. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- An anonymous username, not my real name, I've replied to all the things you pointed out. AryKun (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- AryKun, I've replied to your comments. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- AryKun, I've passed it. Good work. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- AryKun, I've replied to your comments. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)