Talk:Aggressive mimicry/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SparklingPessimist (talk · contribs) 01:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article to make sure it meets all of the GA standards. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 01:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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.	I would like to see this sentence expanded upon this is very interesting information here and I would like to read more instead of just a small piece followed by an etc.: Nonetheless, most mimicry occurring in plants (for an overview see Wiens, 1978) would not be classified as aggressive, as although luring pollinators etc. is similar to cases above, they are certainly not eaten by the plant. OK. I've extended the discussion of plant mimicry and shown that it is certainly not aggressive. As such it's basically off-topic, but makes a useful footnote, so I've moved the aside (that was in parentheses) to a footnote that includes the new material also.
	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.
	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.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
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).
	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. 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.	All images are tagged with a copyright status along with valid fair use rationale where appropriate.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	fits well within GA guidelines.