Talk:Sepsis cynipsea/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Choess (talk · contribs) 21:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This is a great start and does a good job of communicating a lot of relevant specialist literature. However, it still needs some overhaul before meeting the GA criteria, particularly in terms of organization.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Some of the prose is overly colloquial ("choosy") or unnecessarily wordy ("prefers warmer temperature conditions" vs "prefers warmer temperatures"). "Most well known" should probably avoided; this taxon is hardly well known to the general public, period. The "Genetics" section is very obscurely written for a lay reader. The titles of the headings don't always seem to match well with the information in them. Consider looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Insects#Article contents and high-quality insect articles such as Aleeta curvicosta for a better arrangement of sections. Right now, it looks a bit like each subsection was created to summarize one or two papers; it would be better to lay out sections and subsections as an outline of what a reader should be able to learn about the species and then fill in each section from as many references as necessary.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Most references are manually formatted, but one uses the "cite journal" template (and I added another while replacing a missing title). It might be better to standardize on one format or another; I would be happy to help convert in either direction. Sources appear reliable. Have not yet checked for copyvio/plagiarism, although I don't see obvious signs.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The most obvious issue in this section is that the description is very inadequate. This should be much more substantial and draw on keys and secondary literature to make it clear what the morphological features of this species are and how it is differentiated from other taxa. Occasionally the article does seem to drift into discussing issues more suitable for the Sepsidae in general. Reorganizing the sections as suggested above might reveal other issues.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No obvious issues.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Article appears stable.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The few images are suitably licensed and appropriate. A picture of Sepsidae mating on dung would be a great addition, but I don't see one available on Commons; not necessary to meet the criteria.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
The list of issues is not absolutely comprehensive. If the author or others are willing to work on fixing them, I'm happy to engage and help. I'll place on hold and wait a week for a response before closing; I'm willing to hold indefinitely if someone engages the issues. Choess (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No response to review

Choess, it's been over a month since this was placed on hold. The original nominator, Hannahwhite97, was a student in a Fall 2019 course that ended on December 4; she hasn't edited on Wikipedia since November 30, and never responded to the talk-page note that you had started the review. At this point, I think the thing to do is to close the nomination as unsuccessful. I'm so sorry that she didn't stick around to work on the nomination she submitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So done. Nowithstanding, this is a very useful page, and I appreciate the time Hannah put into it. She should be proud of her contribution. Choess (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]