Talk:Megafauna/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Wolverine XI (talk · contribs) 21:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: The Morrison Man (talk · contribs) 22:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be taking a look at this article over the next few days. Comments should be ready soon. The Morrison Man (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I look forward to it. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 08:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked over the article, I don't think I can go through with reviewing it. For a topic this broad, the coverage present is very narrow, almost solely focussing on extant and recently extinct mammalian megafauna (save for the section on flightless birds under the "Evolution of large body size" header). The same can be said for the section on mass extinctions, which only covers the ones in the pleistocene. The section on ecological strategy only covers R- or K-selection, and is also inadequate. All in all, the focus of the article is much too narrow and needs to be expanded significantly. The gallery is unnecessary and again focuses almost entirely on megafauna from the past two million years, ignoring hundreds before that.

The source list, while extensive, is mostly focused in the "Megafaunal mass extinctions" section, with sourcing on a number of paragraphs there and in a large part of the rest of the article being very sparse in nature. Formatting on the sources is good, though. Looking through the articles edit history, it also seems like you haven't contributed a lot to the current text in the article, with most of your edits being removals of content rather than additions.

The prose is mostly ok, though there are numerous smaller issues and some areas of the text lack clarity. The latter is especially evident in the "Evolution of large body size" section. I can provide examples if requested.

There's no copyright violations, I doubt that original research is present (though I did not check for it), and the article is stable enough. However, due to the issues posed above, I do not feel like this article is anywhere near ready for GA review. I would suggest submitting this for peer review first and then coming back to GAN after that. The Morrison Man (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed