Talk:Ecnomiohyla rabborum/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 02:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Hi, Tomer T! I shall review this. I have read it and it seems a nice one. I see here are not many images, but that is not what only matters. I have got some comments here, you can work on these issues:

• In the lead, you can add when this species was discovered and by whom. No need to write the names of all the members of the team, but add this detail. It is relevant for the lead.
• In 'Description'

On the first fingers (look in 2nd paragraph) is incorrect. Make fingers singular.

On the first fingers, the tubercles on the tipmost joints are elliptical in shape; while on the second and third fingers, the tubercles below the finger joints (subarticular tubercles) are smaller than that on the fourth fingers. Sounds a bit confusing. Could you split this into two sentences so that the reader can easily understand?

• In 'Ecology and Biology'-

They can also steer their trajectory during descent could you explain what 'trajectory' is?

Link 'territorial' (to Territory (animal))

The advertising calls of E. raborum males Should be two bs in raborum.

Now a formal review:

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   Awaiting your response.

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Fix the issue in lead, and it is done!

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Though not much information is available, you have done your best.

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   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:

   b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Though images are scarce, there are enough for a good understanding. Well done!

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I will wait for your replies. You have really written it well. Contact me here or on my talkpage if you want to. Cheers!--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Hi Sainsf. I have fixed the issues pointed out. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. I fixed a few more things, now some general comments left:

• Avoid relinking, link each item once. Remove those double links.
• Look for disambig links, using the tool in the toolbox on this page.

Once done with this, I shall promote this as GA. --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

There are no disambiguation links on the article. I also usually follow the policy on WP:REPEATLINK in all my articles, which allows repitition of the lead links in the body of the article, i.e. once in the lead section and once in the body. They reappear because of the technical nature of the article which means the links are helpful in both cases, in the lead, for accessibility to the unfamiliar term; and in the body, which provides better context.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, we are done then. This article has got to be a GA. Cheers!--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Great. Thank you very much for the review. :) -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)