Talk:"Ekbletomys"/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review... comments forthcoming.

Reviewer: – VisionHolder « talk » 20:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Pass, with comments: I fixed a few things that I felt needed attention. The prose is a little dense in places, but that's to be expected in such a specialist article. I converted one overly long sentence into a list, which I hope you find acceptable. Additionally, the sentence mentioning the ICZN could probably be clarified, particularly regarding the part, "in the sense of the [ICZN]". Since I know you will fix this promptly, I will not hold the review for this one minor problem. Lastly, to reiterate my comments from the Trachylepis tschudii review:

1. I personally prefer all references and cited literature to use the {{cite}} templates so that if, for instance, someone wanted to add an ISSN or ISBN, then it could be done easily.
2. Following from the previous point, it would be nice if the ISSNs of the articles could be included.

Otherwise, things look great! – VisionHolder « talk » 21:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I would love to fix that sentence, but don't quite see the problem. The Code has a special definition for what is "published work", and Ray's thesis does not fall under that definition, so it is not "published in the sense of the ICZN". Ucucha 21:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe reword the first half of the sentence to read: "Because Ray's thesis does not fit the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature's (ICZN) formal definition for a "published work, ..." – VisionHolder « talk » 21:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's better, yes. I rewrote it to something slightly different in the article (a construction with 's is generally awkward when it's used for such a long phrase as "International Code of Zoological Nomenclature"). Ucucha 21:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

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.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: