Talk:Pest control/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kostas20142 (talk · contribs) 15:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will gladly take up and review this article.--Kostas20142 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking it on. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC) and from me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

review

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.	The prose is clear and concise. No grammatical errors or misspellings found.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Fully compliant
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.	Fully compliant with the guidelines. However reference #51 returns ISSN error. Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply] confirmed --Kostas20142 (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
	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).	All in-lines citations provided are from reliable sources like university publications, scientific books and reliable news entries.
	2c. it contains no original research.	no original research found.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright violations or plagiarism found. Supplementary test with automated tool has also been conducted, with percentage 2,9% which indicates extremely low probability of violation.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All main aspects of the topic, as methods, how and then are applied are covered sufficiently.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article's length is ok. No unnecessary details that would be problematic were found.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article is neutral. All side-effects and concerns as well as the effectiveness of methods are presented in a balanced, neutral way.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No recent edit wars found. Almost all recent contributions have been productive and improved the article.
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.	All images are properly tagged with their license. All images are in commons, no non-free content found.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images are relevant to the subject and captions are more or less suitable. Do you think that dynasty is really necessary for the bronze cat image?? I have removed the dynasty and retained the dates. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	Article meets GA criteria, as described in my comments above. All issues were minor and have been fixed.

additional comments

"Control of these pests is attempted through exclusion, repulsion, physical removal or chemical means, or by sterilisation programmes or other methods of biological control.": I think that there are too many "or". How about omitting "or by" at "or by sterilisation programmes ". Any other would work as well.

Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article meets the GA standards, awaiting the nominators' input regarding my comment about the bronze cat caption in order to close my review.--Kostas20142 (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]