Talk:Sirex woodwasp/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

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.	What's a "breastbone"? The whole article needs careful copy-editing, if not translation into English. Please check every sentence and redraft if necessary. Article copy-edited ; a few remaining issues are tagged. Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead: is written as a short article. Suggest complete rewrite of lead (move refs to body, or discard) to summarize rest of article. Done Fiction: n/a Lists n/a Layout OK weasel words OK
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.	(just 2 external links, no booklist)
	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).	Refs are ok; would be nice if it chose Surname, Forenames (or Surname, Initials) or vice versa (Forename Surname) etc, but this is not a GA requirement.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No sign of it.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes it does.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	On topic, yes, but somewhat rambling, again it's basically a matter of copy-editing.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Factual. Slight trouble with "native" (to where)... please check for generality.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No sign of recent edit-warring.
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 from Commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Relevant: yes. Captions: please check the use of English. "damages" etc.
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold pending thorough copy-editing of whole article, redraft of lead, tagged items. OK, we got there eventually.

I had requested a copyedit at GOCE, and am awaiting till someone will do a copyedit. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 17:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the prose is so bad. I also had difficulties in understanding some of the jargon. For example, crystallize is the same as resinate.--Tomcat (7) 17:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. The plain meaning of crystallize, which is just one example from many, is to form a crystalline array of atoms or molecules, plainly not what is intended here. To resinate is I guess to fill with sticky resin, not a word in my vocabulary which I can assure you is literate and widely-read in several languages. The problem with the article, however, is not the occasional word, but the many sentences that sound as if they've been machine-translated. I note that the anonymous users who've scored the page on various metrics seemed to agree on this point, scoring "well-written" very low - though all the scores have now vanished. Here's a random sentence: "The host larvae are located to the surrounding wood via the antennae with the aid of the smell of leaking drill dust or fungus myzel, weak vibrations or differences in temperature." I guess that's mycelium; and the sentence probably means "The parasite locates host larvae hidden in the wood ..." - well, what do you think? Not too bad, eh? Try a few sentences for yourself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)