GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 03:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments by Dunkleosteus77 edit
- Just glancing over this, I noticed that the Phanerozoic section is a bit sloppy. Having said that, I know you copy/pasted that from the Phanerozoic article because I wrote it... By the way, have you actually read it? It's not very well written.
- I'll start reviewing the rest when that section is cleaned up.
Comment by BlueMoonset edit
Among the GA criteria are that articles must conform to WP:LEAD. This one doesn't; in particular, the article introduction, while it is supposed to summarize the article as a whole, should not exceed four paragraphs, and this one is six paragraphs. Further, it has material that is not in the article body, which is contrary to the summarizing rule—for example, abiogenesis is defined in the intro, but not even used in the article text except as a referent. Because the intro is a summary, references should generally be associated with the more detailed text in the body, and are only also required in the lead for quotes or for potentially controversial statements. Finally, Ankit2299, remember to check the Good Article criteria to see what else is and isn't needed for your submission to be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)