Talk:Trombiculidae/GA2

GA Review

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

Hi, before we go any further, the references need sorting. Many are bare urls, others lack details such as isbn, page numbers in books or article titles in journals or have strange and or inconsistent formatting. Use the cite templates if you are unsure what is needed. Some refs do not appear to be verifiably reliable sources (encyclopaedias, ask.com and non-academic sites like piedpiper and fabcats) lacking any internal primary referencing to establish their reliability.

Refs 27 and 32 are identical - use <ref name= >

I suspect that the work involved to format the references and replace the dubious ones may be too much to do in the time of this GA, especially as we haven't even started on the content; I suggest that you might like to withdraw for now and resubmit in a few weeks when the article is closer to GAN standard. jimfbleak (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second, I have been waiting for this article to be GA for a while, can't we wait at least 3 days, I promise I will get the refs fixed. Bugboy52.4 (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

List of refs with comments. In addition, there are inconsistencies in ref formatting and style jimfbleak (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• 1 OK
• 2 OK, needs formatting
• 3 No, it’s an encyclopaedia
• 4 OK, needs pages
• 5 No, FAB is a commercial site, no primary refs
• 6 bare ref
• 7 No, no evidence of why this is a reliable source
• 8 Ok
• 9 OK but missing details (authors, publisher etc}
• 10 to 12 OK apart from inconsistent style
• 13 No, it’s an encyclopaedia
• 14 If this is a book needs isbn and pages, if it’s a journal needs fmting and pages
• 15 needs fmting (don’t need to say it’s in English either)
• 16 Armax is commercial site, no primary refs
• 17 ACES looks OK, missing details (authors, publisher etc}
• 18 About.com: Chiggers Pediatric Dermatology Basics, No, you can’t use a website with no url, not reliable anyway
• 19, 20 OK
• 21 Univ of Florida apparent repeat of earlier ref, use <ref name =
• 22 as 18
• 23-26 OK apart from minor formatting
• 27 OK but missing details (, publisher etc}
• 26 Bennett - Why is this a reliable source?
• 29, 30 Ok and perfect formatting!
• 31, 32 FAB and Bennett as above, refs shouldn’t be repeated any
• 33 Commercial website – why is this reliable? It may be, just checking - Also misspelt

For those that are not reliable, try to find an alternative ref (Google Scholar might help); if no alternative ref can be found, best to remove info. jimfbleak (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

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.:

The prose needs tidying up, and there are some unreferenced sections, but nothing that can't be fixed. When you are ready to come back to this, let me know and I'll do a copy edit and fix formatting etc. before you send it to GAN again.