Hi. This is my first GAN in the Science space. I read your comments and it seems like a lot of work that needs to be done. I think you can fail the GAN for now. Thanks. ℛonherry☘09:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
The sectioning is very weird; Description seems to cover both the taxonomic and morphological interpretation of the term? I would prefer the more standard sectioning of "Taxonomy and systematics", "Description", and "Distribution and habitat".
The amount of text discussing the name is very WP:UNDUE. The entire description, should at most be one paragraph. The etymology specifically should just be one line (Something like "The lead author of the study is a fan of the American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift; N. swiftae is named after her as a tribute to her music and its effect on the author").
No information on the taxonomy of the genus or family, and the species' taxonomic position within the genus?
Description is a single sentence long, and is more or less verbatim from the description. It also provides no information that would actually help identify the species; it needs measurements, detailed morphology, and the information from the keys that helps separate it from other Nannaria in its range.
The text in Distribution is misleading: "especially in..Van Buren" suggests that N. swiftae is found primarily in those counties, when it is in fact known exclusively from those counties.
The text in habitat is copied verbatim from the paper describing the species.
You could add a photo of Swift and a diagram of the species gonopods.
Overall, the extreme paucity of information about the species (we have an etymology, key, and range) makes me think it could be handled better as part of List of species in Nannaria.
