Talk:Archaeoindris/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 18:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this soon! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate it. – Maky ^« talk » 20:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

review

This is a very well written article, mostly understandable even for someone like me due to your clear explanations. Quite interesting. Just a few questions about wording:

"deliberate climber that visited the ground to travel." - what is a deliberate climber?

A "deliberate climber" is literally what it sounds like. They move slowly and each foothold is carefully, and deliberately selected. Think of a sloth... or better yet, a slow loris. "Slow and deliberate climber" is both a technical term and also the most basic description I can come up with—in fact, that's what the team who wrote the "Slow loris" article used to describe them. I guess I could add a brief subsection about it on Arboreal locomotion and link to that... – Maky ^« talk » 00:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"one of the most speciose of all the subfossil lemur" - what is "speciose"?

It means there are many species: dictionary entry for -ose – Maky ^« talk » 00:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Furthermore, Lamberton did not realize that the smaller femurs he instead assigned to Archaeoindris belonged to a juvenile" - I think this sentence could be clearer. Could the "instead" be removed? Or moved to the end of the sentence?

Removed it. I can't remember why I included it. Does it still read clearly? – Maky ^« talk » 00:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few edits that you're free to revert:[1]

Very good edits, minus the italicizing of the family names. (Only genus and species name need italics.) Thanks! – Maky ^« talk » 00:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else looks good. It looks like a lot of work went into this article. I'll put this review on hold while you respond to my few comments.

MathewTownsend (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

c. no original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
no edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Pass!

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate the review. – Maky ^« talk » 02:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]