Talk:False potto/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: – VisionHolder « talk » 20:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm claiming this review. Comments coming shortly. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments: Excellent article, and very clear to read for a taxon article with a lot of discussion of anatomy.

Thanks. Ucucha 21:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• "excavation in the skull" – any alternative wording? Not a traditional statement for the people who aren't anatomists.
  • "Excavation" is probably not the right word. I changed it to use "depression" instead.
• Nowak 1999 and Leutwyler 1996 are listed in short footnotes, but not in the "Literature cited".
  • Nowak added; ref = harv added for Leutwyyler.
• The link to "Oates et al. 2008" doesn't work, and probably won't unless we start adding that feature to the various IUCN Red List ref templates. Personally, I just put news and web refs in the References section, then use notes for journals and books. It's up to you how you want to do it, though.
  • Added an anchor to fix this.
    • Unfortunately, the anchor doesn't highlight the ref, but this will have to do. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• I've never used {{Sfnm}} before, but for some reason the first short footnote in ref #17 doesn't work.
  • It's because I misspelled Schwartz's name as Schwarz. Fixed (also on a few other occasions).
    • Funny... I could swear I checked the spelling. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• "citing C. Wild" – Do we have any information about who this is or what publication it's referring to?
  • It's a personal communication; clarified.

Other than that, it looks good to me. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

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):

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:

Great job! Thanks for writing this primate article. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)