Talk:Coral/GA2

GA status: on hold

This article, although close, doesn't quite make the Good Article status. There are a few, mainly minor, things that I feel could be improved.

Lead - the introductory section (before the ToC) is very long! I interpret the '3-4 paragraphs' mentioned in the guidelines to be less substantial than this.
List of genera - I would remove this list or provide it as a supplementary table. It is not likely to be of interest (or mean anything!) to the passing reader without a scientific background.
Timline width: On my monitor, the timeline with fossil ranges (which is an excellent addition, I must add!) protrudes past the edge and messes up the format of the whole page. Could it be split in two, perhaps at the end of the Permian? I wonder if there's a way to split it as required by resizing wondows - perhaps two Timelines placed side to side could be made to behave in a suitable fashion?

Conciseness - there are several places in which the article goes into slightly too much detail or incorporates less-that-relevant snippets of trivia. For example, the lengthy list of fossil reef localities is unneccessary. The section on environmental effects could also be trimmed substantially.

Hence I've provided the status 'on hold' until these issues are addressed.

Verisimilus 14:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and comments, I have tried to address them all:

The lead is now shorter and I think better organised, take a look but it certainly abides by MOS now.
Good point on the genera. I have removed it to Anthozoa and written a short paragraph of information with a link to that as a main page.
The way the timeline code works makes it quite difficult to split it into two. I have made it considerably less wide, so it should now work for 800x600. I don't think there is any easy way to make it only split for smaller window sizes, another option is to lose the last 100my or so, but I'd prefer not to do that if possible.
The fossil reef list is mostly gone with a few kept for illustrative purposes. I have shortened the last 3 sections a little and reorganised them somewhat. I don't want to lose much more info from the environmental section, though at some point it could be substantially expanded and split out.

Let me know what you think, I hope this has addressed your points. |→ Spaully^₪† 17:11, 10 April 2007 (GMT)

As noted on your talk page, this is a great improvement, but I'd like to encourage more tidying to the style. Also, note that the taxobox needs updating - either the orders should be included here, or the reference to their inclusion in the text should be removed. Keep up the good work! Verisimilus 18:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think we're about there with the lead now. I hope you agree with my removal of the Scleractinian-specific information - I feel this is too much of a deviation for so early in the article.

Another point I've been reluctant to mention is the use of images on both sides of the text, as prohibited in the style manual. I'm scratching my head in so far as what to do about this, but it is causing nasty things to happen to the layout in my browser so needs addressing!

If I get the chance, I'll have a look at the rest of the article in the morning; hopefully some more keen editors will also come forwards over the next couple of days - the more fresh eyes the better, I suppose!

Verisimilus 22:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I returned part of the sentence about secreted skeleton which I think is essential in some form, but yes, most of it was superfluous.

On the images, are you referring to 'sandwiching' text? I have tried to avoid this but we might have to remove an image, though most of them are demonstrating a point. Which ones are causing problems for you? The MOS encourages staggering them left and right however.

Getting ever closer! |→ Spaully^₪† 23:16, 10 April 2007 (GMT)

Yes - there's still some sandwiching in the Anatomy section, but it only really 'turns nasty' when the ToC is hidden and the taxobox starts shifting things around. The 'edit section links' (in Firefox at highish resolution, in any case) go into unexpected locations... Again, however, a huge improvement from before!Verisimilus 08:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have moved the image to lower in the anatomy section, works fine now for me with TOC minimised or normal and with a range of widths. |→ Spaully^₪† 09:54, 15 April 2007 (GMT)

Images Done

I'm a little concerned about the copyright status of Image:Nematocyst-discharge process.png. It does look like it's been swiped from a text book, and the artist surely counts as the 'original author'. Unless my strong doubts can be quashed, I'm afraid it would have to count as a 'non free image without a fair use rationale', and have to be replaced before GA could be granted. Verisimilus 08:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't know of the original source, if it was drawn by a WPian or scanned etc. I transferred it across from the Ukranian WP where it has that particular free use tag. What do you reckon? |→ Spaully^₪† 09:09, 11 April 2007 (GMT)

Its absence from the Hebrew FA, where the Anatomy image has been copied and edited, makes me suspicious. I'd be much happier if it were reproduced, or if you could miraculously learn Russian and track down the original poster to confirm its originality... Ultimately I'm no expert on Copyright stati, so I'll see if I can find anyone else to cast an opinion. Verisimilus 10:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created and uploaded a version modified from the public domain. In my opinion not quite as nice as the original but perhaps with more information. |→ Spaully^₪† 17:25, 11 April 2007 (GMT)

GA - Pass!

Congratulations to all editors who have helped sculpt this article into one meeting the good article criteria!

There is still scope for improving the article, mainly in terms of copyediting, abridging and changing writing style - however, this is no longer enough of an issue to deny Good Article status. Well done! | Verisimilus 20:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Verisimilus, you've done more than you needed to! I have seen less attentive peer reviews. I hope you retain an interest in the article. |→ Spaully^₪† 22:12, 16 April 2007 (GMT)