Talk:Neumania papillator

Neumania papillator was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 16, 2016). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Arthropods Low‑importance

	Arthropods portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Neumania papillator/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 18:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. 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. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is an extremely well-written article that I enjoyed reading, and it is extremely informative. However, it does not pass all the criteria simply because there aren't enough references to make this well-rounded. To confess, I wanted to pass it, but as of Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, section 4.3: "If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria", I am forced to fail it. In the future, if more information is uncovered about Neumania papillator, then I suggest you expand other areas of the species (not just reproduction), and promptly renominate this article for GA status. As of now, however, there is not enough material on the subject for me to pass the article. This article certainly deserves to be B-class, though.Gug01 (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any images that can be added to this article? In my experience, images always help the reader visualize certain key aspects. Is there a map of some of the geographical distribution of the species? Gug01 (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the article is mostly focused in both detail and size to reproduction, whereas there is very little information on everything else. There is certainly more on reproductive behavior than on all the other aspects of the species combined. Gug01 (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- My suggestion is to remove some of the redundant or excessive information on reproduction and drastically expand other areas of the articles: distribution, predation, etc. Gug01 (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I will address them today. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 15:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gug01: Hi and thanks for your review. I have not been able to find any pictures on the internet, though I could e-mail Prof. Proctor to see if a free image could be acquired. I have not been able to find any maps of the distribution of the species. The reason that the article is so biased towards reproductive behaviour is purely as this is all that is known (or at least published!) about the species. I have to the best of my knowledge used all the papers ever published on it in this article (see scholar search) - it is only 'notable' in science for its reproductive behaviour). Acather96 (click here to contact me) 16:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Acather96: Thank you very much for your response. Based on the criteria, I don't think the article will be able to be a good article - not because it is poorly written (I think it's a great and well-written article), but because it only addresses reproductive behavior. I will reread the article again, just to make sure. Gug01 (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Do the GA guidelines say anything about cases where no reliable sources exist for some desired aspects of topic coverage? Acather96 (click here to contact me) 07:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I just found it. See Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, section 4.3: "If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria." Gug01 (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]