Talk:Andreacarus voalavo

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Ealdgyth in topic GA Review
Good articleAndreacarus voalavo has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 19, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 17, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the rodent Voalavo gymnocaudus and its parasitic mite Andreacarus voalavo are known only from two massifs in the Northern Highlands of Madagascar?

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Andreacarus voalavo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    just a few niggles on prose/linking/explanations
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
  • Side note, I can't believe I'm reviewing an insect. GAH!
    • Fortunately, you are not; it's an arachnid. Ucucha
      • For us historians, anything with more than 4 legs qualifies, usually. Especially medieval historians when all we think about is plague! I guess I could have said "I can't believe I'm reviewing a "creepy crawly" (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Lead:
    • Linky for "μm"?
    • Are the sternal glands also sensory organs? Or are they something else? Quickie explanation needed (especially as the link is a redlink)
      • No, it seems they're secretory (but don't ask me what they produce). Clarified. Ucucha 14:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • "...a sensory organ on the chelicera, is serrate..." do you mean "serrated"?
      • "serrate" is used by the source. Ucucha 14:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Taxonomy:
    • "...specimens found on a specimen of the rodent..." can we avoid the repetition here somehow?
      • Changed the second into "individual". Ucucha 14:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Description:
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the review. Ucucha 14:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Looks good, passing now. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply