Talk:Electric fish/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 13:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

This looks like an interesting article on a topic that I feel will be of interest to many readers. I will start a review very shortly. simongraham (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you! I'll respond to any comments promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments

This is a stable and well-written article. 69.2% of authorship is by Chiswick Chap. It is currently ranked B class.

• The text is clear and concise.
• It is written in a summary style, consistent with relevant Manuals of Style
• The lead is of appropriate length and contains both a summary of the article and some interesting facts about the African sharptooth catfish and Bluntnose knifefish to encourage further reading.
• Citations seem to be thorough.
• References appear to be from reputable sources.
• Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 0.0% chance of copyright violation.
• The article is of appropriate length with 1,590 words of readable prose.
• Text seems to be neutral and shows a balanced global perspective.
• There is no evidence of edit wars.
• Images have appropriate licensing and CC tags.
• Spot checks confirm that the sampled journal articles listed support the article.

Recommendations

• Link African sharptooth catfish (Clarias gariepinus) in the lead.
  • Done.
• Possibly link Hypopomidae for the bluntnose knifefish in the lead.
  • Done.
• Possibly link electrolocation (although this is currently a redirect to part of the article on Electroreception and electrogenesis).
  • Done, it's clearly helpful to the reader here.
• Link gymnotiformes at the first mention.
  • Done.

@Chiswick Chap: Awesome work. Please ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Simongraham:: all done! Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Excellent work. I'll start the assessment now. simongraham (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Assessment

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   it contains no original research;

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   it stays ffocused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

3. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

4. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Congratulations. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)