(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]
The History of Research section is way too long, especially in proportion to the "Paleoecology" and "Paleobiology" sections, which are the meat of the article because they are about the species. It needs to be cut down.
Undetermined
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Notes
Result
The reviewer has left no comments here
Pass
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Notes
Result
Wow, the article got hugely revamped in a single edit! I'm impressed.
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)
The reviewer has left no comments here
Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)
Are there any colored holotypes to be found for the genus? Adding a colored picture would help, but there might not be one, so this is a relatively minor point.
Even so, I'm not sure all the details in the section are particularly necessary, although there might be certain conventions for extinct arthropods that I'm unaware of. Nevertheless, I'm impressed by the due diligence to find all the details in the first place. Gug01 (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in here, saying a section should be cut down because other sections are shorter is absolute nonsense. It has nothing to do with the GA criteria, and it makes sense the section is longer since it covers more than a century of research. FunkMonk (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from, User:FunkMonk, but my words have been misinterpreted. Keeping things in proportion, covering all the main subtopics to the article subject without going into unnecessary detail, is one of the criteria for GA articles. What I'm trying to get across is that I don't think that all the details in the section are relevant and that the size of the section makes the reader give outsized weight to the "History of Research" part of the article. Gug01 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had something like "First discoveries" and "Description of subsequent species" in mind. I do not agree with removing details, I think everything is useful in some way. SuperΨDro14:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus: I agree with the splitting up the section. As to cutting down certain details, I'll take another look at the sections to pinpoint where I think it's too much. It might not even be the details themselves so much as the wording. If I find that, reviewing the article, I'm wrong, then the article definitely should be GA. If not, we'll work together to fix it. Gug01 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus: Good job writing this article! While I was uneasy about the length of the first section, breaking it up has helped a lot. I want to congratulate you on your work to bring this obscure species to GA status. The organization and prose were clear and there was a good depth of detail. Gug01 (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2019 (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
Undetermined