Wikipedia:Peer review/Olm/archive1

I translated and expanded this article from the version I wrote on Slovenian WP where it received FA status. I'm aware that standards here may be a bit higher, so for now I'd just like to see if it's good enough for GA status. It may seem to lack citations, but everything has been checked in the mentioned sources, I just didn't provide source for every sentence separately (but can add it without problems if it would look better. Please also check style and grammar, I'm not a native english speaker. Thanks, Yerpo 12:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off this is a very fine article, good work! I did some cleanup of the language. One thing I changed often, was larva to tadpole. That life-stage is most always refered to as the tadpole in amphibians. The lead needs to be a more complete summary of the entire article per WP:LEAD. Some of the subtitles are awkward like "Life in the Darkness" and the titles should not ever say "olm". It still needs a better writer than me to check some style issues. There are parts that sound off to me, yet I am unsure how to change them. The only thing I find missing is a section on "Evolution and taxonomy" even though there is some discussion on the issues throughout. --BirgitteSB 15:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift response. I'll implement your suggestions shortly, although the section on evolution and taxonomy might be a problem, because I haven't found much about it in my sources. --Yerpo 21:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am having second thoughts about that suggestion. I don't know that I should expect a species aricle to have that after all, it just the olm is so unquie of a species and an entire genus that I thought of it in the first place. BTW, did you see the video of these in the "Planet Earth" TV series? There where some very impressive images and you should look into finding a copy of the "Caves" DVD if you haven't.--BirgitteSB 01:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week since the last comment. The article was improved in the meanwhile and I think it's time to nominate it for a FA. Archiving this Peer review. --Tone 12:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]