Talk:Cyrtophora citricola/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pax85 (talk · contribs) 22:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Overall, very well-written. I performed some light copyediting throughout. The article was informative and approachable. Some of the terminology can be a bit advanced for those without a background in the subject, but the linking and occasional explanatory clauses help to mitigate this. Well done!
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Good. No major issues with MOS. Layout matches the layout of some other related articles.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	List of references is thorough and well-formatted according to established guidelines.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All references seem good, uncontroversial, and from well-established sources. There were a few issues regarding repetition and availability. See below. Reference issues addressed.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything is well-sourced and researched.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No apparent copyright violations present.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article structure reflects that of other similar articles, which helped to guide a thorough treatment of the subject. The article touches on the main topics that may be of interest to the casual reader.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Overall, the article stays on topic. In the copyedit process, I did make some changes that should be reviewed. Please see the comment below. All comments addressed.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Everything seems neutral, with no bias present.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring present. The article is well-established. Recent edits include changes brought resulting from GA1.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images from Commons. All appropriately tagged and attributed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	A nice variety of images with simple captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Awaiting comments and edits from the requester. As noted on the requester's talk page, will wait 7 days before finalizing the review. -Pax Verbum 06:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC) All comments have been addressed. The article is informative, detailed, and approachable. Promotoing this to GA now. Congratulations! -Pax Verbum 20:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments

M.s.w.lee: We will conduct the new review on this page. I'll try not to rehash anything that has already been addressed in the previous review. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask any time! -Pax Verbum 22:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

References

• Ref. 9: Reference 6 and 9 seem to be the same. Can we simply use ref 6 only?
• Ref. 18: The link to the PDF from the AAS seems to be dead, coming up with a 404 error.
• Ref. 24: It seems neither of us can find an online copy of this source. I did, however, find this source with the same information, which itself references the original source. I wonder if we could include this since it is in English and available online?

   Ref. 10 is the same article that you provided so I replaced Ref. 24 with Ref. 10 M.s.w.lee (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ref. 29: This one is in Spanish. It's not absolutely necessary to have it in English, but it would be helpful. That said, using my own facility in Spanish, I can't seem to find a direct reference to the article species or to the methods used to exterminate colonies. Perhaps I misread or didn't catch something, as my Spanish is only at an intermediate, and hence non-scientific, level?

    This was a miscitation the information is in Ref. 10 deleted Ref. 29 and replaced with Ref. 10M.s.w.lee (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Prose and content

Note: As I work through the article, I will place particular comments here under the corresponding section, sometimes grouping sections as I find time to look them over. I will probably do a bit of light copyediting on the way as well.

Items in bold need to be addressed directly.

Lead

• Overall, very good. Lead summarizes the article well and uses sources appropriately. I would say that the end of the third paragraph gets pretty detailed for a lead section. Perhaps rewording or even deleting the last couple of sentences, making sure that the more detailed information is in the article, of course.

   deleted the last couple of sentences M.s.w.lee (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Body

• Very clear and approachable. Completed some light copy editing throughout, which included minor punctuation, flow, or structure issues. Some of the terminologies can get a bit heady for non-biology types, but I think it's OK due to the linking of possibly unfamiliar terms.
• Web subsection: In the last paragraph, I brought some of the sentences together and restructured a bit for ease of reading and clarity. You may want to take a look at this.

   It looks good! Thanks for restructuring the section and improving its readability! M.s.w.lee (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)