Jump to content

Talk:Onychopterella/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 23:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) 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.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review[edit]

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) I would give you two checkmarks if I could, as the prose does a very good job of explaining vocabulary and is generally very robust. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) The History of Research section is way too long, especially in proportion to the "Paleoecology" and "Paleobiology" sections, which are the meat of the article because they are about the species. It needs to be cut down. Neutral Undetermined
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    Wow, the article got hugely revamped in a single edit! I'm impressed. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Are there any colored holotypes to be found for the genus? Adding a colored picture would help, but there might not be one, so this is a relatively minor point. Pass Pass

Result[edit]

Result Notes
Neutral Undetermined The reviewer has left no comments here

Discussion[edit]

  • I have not been able to find color images with a proper license, so I can not do anything at this point. Super Ψ Dro 17:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would dividing the history of research into two subsections work? Super Ψ Dro 17:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should. How are you planning to divide it? Temporally? Gug01 (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, I'm not sure all the details in the section are particularly necessary, although there might be certain conventions for extinct arthropods that I'm unaware of. Nevertheless, I'm impressed by the due diligence to find all the details in the first place. Gug01 (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that the article is more than good enough to be a GA. Gug01 (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in here, saying a section should be cut down because other sections are shorter is absolute nonsense. It has nothing to do with the GA criteria, and it makes sense the section is longer since it covers more than a century of research. FunkMonk (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from, User:FunkMonk, but my words have been misinterpreted. Keeping things in proportion, covering all the main subtopics to the article subject without going into unnecessary detail, is one of the criteria for GA articles. What I'm trying to get across is that I don't think that all the details in the section are relevant and that the size of the section makes the reader give outsized weight to the "History of Research" part of the article. Gug01 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had something like "First discoveries" and "Description of subsequent species" in mind. I do not agree with removing details, I think everything is useful in some way. Super Ψ Dro 14:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus: I agree with the splitting up the section. As to cutting down certain details, I'll take another look at the sections to pinpoint where I think it's too much. It might not even be the details themselves so much as the wording. If I find that, reviewing the article, I'm wrong, then the article definitely should be GA. If not, we'll work together to fix it. Gug01 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, I added the subsections. I'll be waiting for your next reply. Super Ψ Dro 22:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Dromaeosaurus: Good job writing this article! While I was uneasy about the length of the first section, breaking it up has helped a lot. I want to congratulate you on your work to bring this obscure species to GA status. The organization and prose were clear and there was a good depth of detail. Gug01 (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Super Ψ Dro 00:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Onychopterella/GA1&oldid=1038141877"