Talk:Poison dart frog/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The lead should be a summary of the entire article, with no original information, and so shouldn't have references unless they are backing up a direct quote.

Please either expand paragraphs that only have one or two sentences, or combine them with other paragraphs.

There is a pair of hidden comments under the Habitat section on adding some information that should probably be acted upon and/or removed.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Please make sure that you have the publisher listed, not the work, for web references. For example, for ref #6, the publisher would be The American Museum of Natural History, not Research.amnh.org. Also check refs 7, 8, etc. Basically, they shouldn't end with a .com, etc. unless that's actually the name of the company that publishes the website.

Please either use cite templates for all of the refs or none of the refs, rather than mixing it up like it is currently.

There are a few spots that need references:

Habitat section - entire section

Color morphs section - last half of first paragraph, most of second paragraph

Toxicity and medicine - last half of first paragraph, all of second paragraph

Captive care - entire section
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

At the moment, there are some major referencing issues in this article, so I am putting the article on hold until these can be addressed. Due to the referencing issues, I have not completed a full check of the prose; I will do this when I see that referencing is proceeding. Drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I have fixed up all of the questionable content in your review. Please take a look. StevePrutz (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good, so I am passing the article to GA status. My final comments would be that for the further improvement of the article, I would suggest finding a reference for the information at the end of the Captive care section, either finding refs for or removing the information that you currently have hidden, and removing the rest of the extra fields from the cite web templates. I've already removed the big groupings of them, but any other fields that you don't use can be removed. If, at some point in the future, the information becomes available, it's easy enough to add the fields back in, and they make editing harder and clutter up the editing window to just leave them in and empty. Nice work on the article! Dana boomer (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! I will try to run DOIbot again on the article refs (it wasn't working yesterday). StevePrutz (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]