Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Invasive species/1
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.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • GAN review not found
- Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, meaning it fails GA criterion 2b); at close to 10,000 words, it may also breach criterion 3b) and might need to be trimmed of superfluous detail. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The first sentence of the lead is problematical in that it gives alien species as a synonym for invasive species. On the one hand, not all alien species are invasive - some only persist because of repeated reintroductions. On the other hand, some concepts of invasive species can include native species. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- No it didn't, it explained the concept of alien species and then defined invasive as a subset. But it was confusing and I've reworded it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think the general definition of an invasive species is one that has been introduced into a new biological community and has spread away from the point of introduction. The concept gets a little messy when dealing with alien species and there are a lot of strong feelings about the topic that make this page a magnet for bloat. Hardyplants (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I need help to recognize what constitutes "This 2007 listing." Thank you for assisting me here. "Significant uncited material" certainly fails Good Article criteria. Regarding the considerable detail in the article, given the complexity of the topic and the multiple angles from which it can be responsibly addressed, the fact that the article has what for me is solid section and sub-section structure, and (again for me) is consistently well-written, makes the detail unobjectionable. For example, in section "Vectors," sub-section "Within the aquatic environment," an editor in the fourth paragraph of this subsection has noted a "loophole" in "ballast water regulations." The level of detail here might appear to some as extreme, but I find it informative and would not label it superfluous. Canhelp (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Canhelp, "This 2007 listing" means that the article was first listed as a GA in 2007. Thank you for your excellent reasoning on the matter of detail. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- As someone who had brought two articles to GA status last year (and has two more GA nominations under review), I agree that this article is not in a good state. It seems much closer to something like Environmental effects of aviation or Effects of climate change on plant biodiversity (both C-level) than a GA-level article (i.e. Effects of climate change).
- However, this article also receives a fairly significant amount of pageviews, so improving it is important. While I am hardly short of articles to attend to at the moment, I can start making progress on making this article live up to its status this week, if the reviewers agree to wait before taking away its badge. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- InformationToKnowledge, GARs are kept open for up to three months as long as there is someone willing to work on the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- AirshipJungleman29: It was certainly verbose. I've cut the length of the article body to 6000 words and fixed the citation problem. That would seem to have addressed the concerns here now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)