Talk:California sheephead/GA2
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Sainsf in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Great article, my first comments (going section-wise):
Lead edit
- Please write Semicossyphus pulcher, the California sheephead, as The California sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher).
- pressures should be pressure, I think.
- Perhaps you could enlarge the lead with more relevant details discussed in the article.
Description edit
- Use convert templates here.
Ecology edit
- protogynous, sea urchins,benthic,foraging, Diurnal ,ambits,spawning are duplicate links. delete them.
Human interaction edit
- before they’ve Write they have.
- Morphogenesis,CDFG are duplicate links.
Other suggestions edit
- It is important to include a "Taxonomy and naming" section, that clearly tells the scientific name in the first line (also tell which genus and family it belongs to), then elaborates about its taxonomical history. In general, state who first recognised the species, mention any relevant studies made based on this species' taxonomic relation with other species, and say about subspecies (if any). You may also discuss how synonyms came into existence.
- Don't keep the etymology section. Rather transfer the data into this new section.
- Use more images (if available)
- I am not sure as to what aspect "Biology" section clearly refers to. I would rather not have it. Distribute the data here in other sections as it seems proper.
- Look at all the headings. Don't write "h" in Habitat in the upper case, and so on.
- Rewrite ref. 16 properly.
Please see to these slight errors, and include the Taxonomy and naming section. Then I believe this can be promoted to be a GA. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I am very sorry, but I have to fail this article, because you have not responded since fifteen days. This should not discourage you, however - you should go on with your good work. But please don't be late to reviews. Good luck! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 14:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)