Talk:Beetle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Stemonitis (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like to see this article promoted, and there's a lot of really good material here, but I don't think it's up to GA standard yet. I also think that it will take quite a bit of effort to get there, which is why I've decided to fail it, rather than place it on hold (also influenced by the nominator's apparent inactivity). It falls down on criteria 1a) and 2b) – the writing is not particularly clear, there are large sections which are not referenced (the section on External morphology has only 6 inline citations across 8 paragraphs, for instance), and some of the existing references need more detail, particularly page numbers for the books. I also found a worrying number of references with the wrong authors, or the wrong title, and there will be lots of DOIs, PMIDs and so on which should be added. The Guild of Copy Editors may be able to help with criterion 1a); criterion 2b) will just take hard graft, I fear. I look forward to seeing a resubmission when the article has been cleaned up to a higher standard. I have not checked the remaining criteria in detail, but I don't think they'll be such a problem. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]