Talk:Titanokorys/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · contribs) 01:03, 23 September 2022 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Criteria 1

There's some very obvious copyediting issues (grammar, word choices, lang inconsistencies, etc) that I can easily fix and will do. Slightly bigger problems concerns the flow of reading; some sentences are excessively long and could be broken up to two. "mothership" and "spaceship" weren't capitalized in the Science article; should stick closely to the source.

The sentence in Description section, "Whats striking about this fossil are numerous specimens of the agnostid Trilobite genus Peronopsis in the immediate vicinity or directly on the exuvia." needs some clarification. Is that sentence related to the next one?Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That line is in the description section, Yeah it is related, but i will add more to it Fossiladder13 (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

In Classification, is "In the study that was conducted" worth mentioning? If it is, that study needs to be specified, otherwise remove this part. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dora the Axe-plorer got it, its removed. Fossiladder13 (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I will conduct a final read-through. You should do the same to fix any language issues. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Criteria 2

Very good sourcing, reliable sources. Citation needs to be in full, however; cited but incomplete (missing journal volume and/or issue, author(s), etc). Please fill them up.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Could you possibly show me what references are incomplete so I can more easily fix them?

Thanks Fossiladder13 (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dora the Axe-plorer, Ok I fixed the citations that lacked an author, only problem was that one of the news articles said it was made by the Royal Ontario Museum, that would not fit into the "first name"-"Last name" format of the citations. What do you suggest we do about that.

Thanks Fossiladder13 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That belongs to the website parameter. I have fixed it and added an archive url since the original url is dead. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Criteria 3, 4, 5

Pass

Criteria 6

There are two files that show hypothetical reconstruction in different formats. Is it possible to stick to one, or is there some reason to justify including both?

The classification diagram is in an odd potition. Perhaps it could be resized and/or shifted higher in the body so it isn't obstructed with the reference list.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Resolved Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)