Talk:Snakefly/GA1
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: RecycledPixels (talk · contribs) 21:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Many thanks for taking this on. Cwmhiraeth and I will address any comments promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I will do this review over the next day or two. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- ACK! I am SO SORRY! Short version is I screwed up and forgot that I promised to do this. If you want the long version I'll spill it out, but in the end, I am not going to be offended if you want to request another reviewer. But looking at my real-world schedule it is very likely that I will be able to return to this before the end of next week. Again, I am sorry for leaving this hanging. RecycledPixels (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- Not to worry - we're both glad you're on the case. Looking forward to the review next week. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2019 (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. | |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
| 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. | Inline citations are used. I have spot checked a few of the citations and found that the cited reference supports the text in the article. All references use the proper citation templates (cite web, cite book, cite journal, etc). |
|
|
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 sources used in the article are reliable sources; mostly journals and books, a couple of reliable websites. |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | I have not detected any examples of original research in the article. |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | I have been able to find any instances of plagiarism, close paraphrasing, or copyright violations in the article. Any issues that I have detected were tracked back to other online sites copying the Wikipedia article, which has been around in some form since 2005. |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Article hits all of the major topics that I would expect to find about an insect- where does it live, what does it eat, what eats it, what does it look like, how does it fit into its ecological niche, interactions with humans. One fact I did not find in the description section is any mention of its size. Can you add a range of sizes of the snakeflies so the reader knows about how large or small they are? The lack of this fact does not rise to the level of not covering all of the main aspects of the topic, so GA criteria 3a still passes, but it would be very helpful to have in the article. Cwmhiraeth - would you like to take this one? Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Good coverage and focus |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Article is neutral, which is what I would pretty much expect with any article about an uncontroversial insect (unless it was written by an aphid) |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Article has been stable since its nomination aside from routine maintenance |
| 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 of the included images are from commons. All but two are CC licenses, two are copyrighted images with permission to use if properly attributed, which is accomplished with the link to commons. AGF on the File:Oedomylus_sp_crop.jpg which was uploaded to Commons by one of this article's major contributors with a CC license, but not identified as own work, so unable to verify that. One concern I have is the File:Juroraphidia_longicollum.jpg image, which is on Commons with a CC-BY-SA license, but attributed to a 2014 journal. The website of that journal does not indicate that any of its content is freely licensed. The editor who uploaded it to commons has several talk page warnings about copyright violations, so I am worried about the true copyright status of this image. Can you comment about that?
|
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Nice selection and balance of images, all relevant to the article |
|
7. Overall assessment. | |
Closing review
[edit]Per a request on my talk page, I am closing this effectively abandoned review (the reviewer has not returned in over a month), and putting the nomination back into the pool of GANs needing review. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.