Jump to content

Talk:Megalodon/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Reassessment

[edit]
The following review has been postponed and is waiting for a copyedit by the GOCE. Please do not modify this review. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the Talk:Megalodon. No further edits should be made to this section until the copyedit is over.

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

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) No big issues, I have also requested a copyedit. Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (MoS) Some convert issues are not taken care of. Fail Fail
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) all fixed. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) All reliable. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has no notes here. Don't know Don't know
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Covers em' well. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) To the point, except for the anatomy section. Branches off to far in that section. Fail Fail
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    Pretty good. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    Pretty flat. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) All fair. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) All fair. Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Neutral Undetermined I have noted about GAR on major contributors' talk pages. Allowing 2 days and then it will reach a decision.

Discussion

[edit]

Please add any related discussion here.

References 42, 49, 59, 60 and 15 have been edited to resolve the issues raised in the GA reassessment review point 2(a). However, I don't know what the comment "There are also two external links" refers to. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being descriptive enough on that. I am talking about 1. http://las.depaul.edu/env/People/KenshuShimada/ShimadaResearch/index.asp (info) [depaul.edu] and 2. A video clip depicting aggressive interspecific interactions between Megalodon and a pod of killer odontoceti (B. shigensis ) (info) [2hgs.com]. Both aren't cited right, and anyways they don't work. I have added more info above too. ObtundTalk 04:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The dead external links have now been fixed. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what is the problem with links that change their path? I have a hard time believing that http://www.google.com/books?id=2My8M5tL-KIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false would be preferred over the equivalent http://google.com/books?id=2My8M5tL-KIC&printsec=frontcover, for example. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated above. #64 changes and doesn't give any info. and #10 is still a dead link, ObtundTalk 23:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The links in refs 10, 64 and 68 have been fixed. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding GA reassessment review point 1(b), I have edited a couple conversions, but I don't know which ones you object to. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few, if you just take a brief scan you'll find them all, if you want I can look again and note them for you. ObtundTalk 23:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding GA reassessment review point 3(b), concerning the "Anatomy" section, it would again be helpful to know where, in the reviewer's opinion, the text "branches off too far." In general, I don't understand the practice of suggesting that a problem exists and then being coy about what that problem is. WolfmanSF (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An example would be in length estimates. Just make one subsection that has Methods and describe each you do not need to go too indepth you don't need a section for each Person, just summarize them in one. ObtundTalk 22:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Since this section is not my work, I'm going to let LeGenD or others decide if they see fit to follow up on your suggestion. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, given that the length estimation has been a problematic and controversial subject, as well as one of very great interest, I'm not convinced that your suggestion is really appropriate. WolfmanSF (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The review above, has been postponed and is waiting for a copyedit by the GOCE. Please do not modify this review. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the Talk:Megalodon. No further edits should be made to this section until the copyedit is over.
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Megalodon/GA2&oldid=1038145098"