Talk:Sabinaria/GA1

GA Review

PASSED GA

Article is clearly broad, and with some movements, I have no issues in closing as passed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 10:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria - Y Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It contains copyright infringements - CopyVio is clean Y Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). - Y Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -Y Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links

No dablinks Y Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one external link in the page, and it's good Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Lede

Wikilink genus Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done
"Local mule drivers" - I'm assuming people riding mules? It's said in a couple places, but it's a bit odd for the lede. Is it important for the lede that they are on mules? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Mule driver" is the term Bernal uses in his account of the discovery of the species. They're the people who use mules to transport goods and supplies in these mostly roadless areas.
Lede is a little short. Could we have a little more information on the discovery/or where the name came from? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Expanded the lead a little.

Description

"Leaves are borne at the end of a long petiole - the combined length of the leaf sheath and petiole averages 319 centimetres (126 in)." is a hyphen right here? Could it not say "petiole with the combined length..." Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The hyphen doesn't belong. I changed it to a semi-colon, which I think creates a better flow.
is it normal to shorten the title (such as "The leaves of S. magnifica") without doing so earlier in the article? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was taught that you don't abbreviate the genus name at the start of a sentence, and never at the start of a paragraph. If you follow that rule, is the first place where it's possible to abbreviate the genus.

"They were described by William J. Baker and John Dransfield as "spectacular" and the most distinctive character of the genus" as Baker isn't notable (or at least not wikilinked), it should say who these people are Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Done.
Cryosophileae is mentioned for the first time, without establishing what it is, or that its a parent family. It should be wikilinked. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.

Taxonomy

~~How is Saúl Hoyos the discoverer, if earlier, it's stated it was formally discovered by two other people. Am I missing something?~~ Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how this effects the MOS, but this section seems a little disjointed. I'd like to see information on it being discovered by Hoyos before information on who he sent the pictures too, if you get my drift. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense. Thanks.

Notes & References

My knowledge of offline sources isn't the best, but shouldn't these still have publishing/access dates? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The years of publication are there, and the precise date in some cases. The cite journal template breaks if you just have year-month, so I usually just go with year. The refs are all generated by the Cite tool, and I followed up with citation bot, so I'm hoping everything is MOS-compliant in the refs.

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Hi, I'm putting the article on hold, for the few minor things above. In all, it's a very good article, my biggest issue would be on it's scope, and if it would be too short for a GA, but I have seen shorter articles (I believe it's fine, so long as it's broad, and not a stub). If you could reply to the above, I would appreciate it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It isn't the shortest - Hypogeomys australis is only 563 words versus this article's 755. I do believe it's broad - the only publication on the genus that I didn't touch was one of pollen morphology, which is (IMO) just too esoteric for a Wikipedia article. I could expand the description, but I'm not sure how much value there is in adding too much more of the minutia that are going to be included in a full scientific description. Despite how short the article is, I think it's broad in that it covers much of what has been written about the genus (at least in high-quality sources). Guettarda (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I thought there had been smaller. I'm more used to reviewing sports articles, which are generally TOO long, so it caught me off guard. I don't have a problem with the length, but for someone unfamiliar with this type of subject, I had to do a bit of research on if this was broad, which it does seem like it is. I'm going to do another read through, and potentially pass the GA, if I don't have further concerns. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Lee Vilenski. In reply to your question at the top, I found your review very helpful, it improved the article, and it was a pleasant experience working with you. Guettarda (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words! I'll archive this GA nomination. Well done. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.