Talk:Hatzegopteryx/GA1
Latest comment: 7 years ago by BlueMoonset in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tisquesusa (talk · contribs) 06:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Some small improvements done on the prose; avoiding repetitive words using synonyms
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Well-structured, moved the etymology to a separate section with the naming to first chapter
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Good list of verifiable references, nicely linked to abstracts and full papers available online
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- Complete, reliable sources from different journals
- C. It contains no original research:
- All ok
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Text is written by the author, no literal copies from the refs
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Complete in description/paleobiology, paleoecology and taxonomy
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- Very concise, well summarised
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- All good
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- No problems
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Good images of appropriate status
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Images expanded in size, mainly to highlight better what can be seen in them without the need to open them, added some for clarity about the paleo-environment of the late Maastrichtian southern Europe
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Well-written complete, well-sourced with accessible online references, which is a big plus for an article and a GA in particular. Nice article about an interesting situation; a pterosaur as top predator in a small terrestrial environment in present-day SE Europe. Well done.
- Pass or Fail:
Review edit
Under review, Tisquesusa (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- You there, Tisquesusa? FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, I had forgotten that I nominated this article... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, shouldn't really take this long for a review to begin, which is why I dropped by... FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification, review done, some edits made to the article, nice one; passed. When you have more of these paleontological articles to review, give me a shout, cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, shouldn't really take this long for a review to begin, which is why I dropped by... FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, I had forgotten that I nominated this article... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
FunkMonk, any thoughts on the revisions? I'm personally a bit concerned about the skull comparison and old life reconstruction that have been added, because they do not seem very accurate. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think those changes are outside the scope of a GA review. Such major layout changes should ideally be suggested at the review page for discussion, not be implemented by the reviewer. That's what the reviews are for, discussion of changes, not simply passing without any correspondence. And there's of course a reason why those images weren't used, they're not accurate according to the latest sources. FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, Lythronaxargestes, if you think any changes or images are inaccurate or otherwise don't belong, then by all means remove them, and start a discussion on the talk page outside of this review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)