Talk:Oryzomys antillarum/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Daniel Cavallari (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Text is clearly well written and fluid.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Intro size is adequate and summarizes the content. Everything else seems OK.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Very well referenced. References are mostly verifiable.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Reliable references are provided wherever necessary.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Article broadly covers important aspects of the species (morphology, taxonomy, ecology).

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   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:

   No copyright issues have been detected.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Image usage is very adequate. Images are provided when necessary, and are also very informative.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass!

Discussion

I will detail any existing issues below.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

1. The article is excellent overall, I have no serious complaints about prose, references, image captions etc. However, the first time someone is mentioned by name, I feel adding a couple of descriptors is valuable in understanding (usually nationality and occupation, eg. English naturalist, American zoologist, and so on). I already did add some descriptors, but I myself do not know many of those authors (or they are rather not wikilinked). Could this be arranged?--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This matter has come up in a few previous GAs and FAs of mine. I prefer not to mention such descriptors, since they really are irrelevant details—what matters is the science, not where the person who did the science comes from. Therefore, I have removed the ones you added.

Thanks for reviewing! Ucucha 16:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I understand your point of view, and it was only a minor suggestion. In fact, this is more of an issue in articles that are not science related. In any case, I believe the article is quite ready to go. You really should think about a peer review and later FA nomination soon. Congratulations!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)