Jump to content

Talk:Oryzomys antillarum/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Daniel Cavallari (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Text is clearly well written and fluid.
    B. MoS compliance:
    Intro size is adequate and summarizes the content. Everything else seems OK.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Very well referenced. References are mostly verifiable.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Reliable references are provided wherever necessary.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Article broadly covers important aspects of the species (morphology, taxonomy, ecology).
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    No copyright issues have been detected.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Image usage is very adequate. Images are provided when necessary, and are also very informative.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: Pass!

Discussion[edit]

I will detail any existing issues below.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The article is excellent overall, I have no serious complaints about prose, references, image captions etc. However, the first time someone is mentioned by name, I feel adding a couple of descriptors is valuable in understanding (usually nationality and occupation, eg. English naturalist, American zoologist, and so on). I already did add some descriptors, but I myself do not know many of those authors (or they are rather not wikilinked). Could this be arranged?--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This matter has come up in a few previous GAs and FAs of mine. I prefer not to mention such descriptors, since they really are irrelevant details—what matters is the science, not where the person who did the science comes from. Therefore, I have removed the ones you added.
Thanks for reviewing! Ucucha 16:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I understand your point of view, and it was only a minor suggestion. In fact, this is more of an issue in articles that are not science related. In any case, I believe the article is quite ready to go. You really should think about a peer review and later FA nomination soon. Congratulations!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]