Talk:Gordodon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 22:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Overall well written article, and not too much literature out there on it since the taxon is only 3 years old   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I did some minor copyediting earlier

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Why do you cite Live Science?

   I cited Live Science for the estimated total body length given in the press release, as the paper itself only provided a presacral length. I meant to cite both for each, though I managed to misplace the Live Science ref for the presacral length by mistake. I've corrected the order of the citations, though if it's better to remove the Live Science ref all together I'll be happy to oblige. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 13:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust a number only mentioned in Live Science. It doesn't make any sense how they'd approximate the length of the tail anyways   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair dos, I've cut the reference to total body length. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 16:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: