(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
Parts of the article are unacceptably poorly written, seemingly machine-translated from German. See discussion below. Much better now, well done everyone who helped.
Pass
(b) (MoS)
lead section: reasonable length (could be a little more detailed to give a better overview). layout: ok. words to watch: ok
Refs are acceptable for GA, but they are in varying styles, and several refs to the same books duplicate all but the page nos - ideally these would be rationalised with a bibliography.
Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)
OK
Pass
(c) (original research)
Not an issue here.
Pass
Broad in its coverage:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (major aspects)
Article clearly covers main aspects of the topic; there appears to be room for improvement here post-GA to explain things more thoroughly with more examples (and probably diagrams and micrographs).
Pass
(b) (focused)
Doubts about focus have been removed by the requested copy-editing.
Pass
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Notes
Result
Historic and more recent views of different researchers are described fairly.
Pass
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Notes
Result
No sign of edit-warring.
Pass
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)
This article does quite a good job of making this "unprepossessing" group interesting and even attractive. There is room, post-GA, for more illustrations, examples, diagrams and explanation. As the group's complicated relationships become better understood, the article will need to be reworked to reflect improved understanding.
While reading the article, I've found the use of English uneven. Parts are quite well-written, but others seem to be raw machine-translation apparently from German. There were also long comments in the text from a German wiki, not matched by the current English text so it seems someone intended to use these at some stage. At the very least, the article needs to be copy-edited into reasonable English by someone who is familiar with the Myxogastria. I can guess that "plasm" means "cytoplasm" but on more specialised matters, expert attention is clearly needed. In places the article is not comprehensible, and in many others it can only be read by guessing what the German must have been (with some biological knowledge. I have therefore put the GA review on hold until the article has been copy-edited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC) (Done)[reply]
Thanks for your review. I will check the reference and fix the "now" reference if needed. I did not translate the hidden text in German as I was not sure if it applied only to Germany or the rest of the world. German nomenclatures, especially biological, may be a bit different.--Tomcat(7)09:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
^ 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.
^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.
^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.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^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.
Pass