Talk:"Ekbletomys"/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting review... comments forthcoming.
Reviewer: – VisionHolder « talk » 20:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Pass, with comments: I fixed a few things that I felt needed attention. The prose is a little dense in places, but that's to be expected in such a specialist article. I converted one overly long sentence into a list, which I hope you find acceptable. Additionally, the sentence mentioning the ICZN could probably be clarified, particularly regarding the part, "in the sense of the [ICZN]". Since I know you will fix this promptly, I will not hold the review for this one minor problem. Lastly, to reiterate my comments from the Trachylepis tschudii review:
- I personally prefer all references and cited literature to use the {{cite}} templates so that if, for instance, someone wanted to add an ISSN or ISBN, then it could be done easily.
- Following from the previous point, it would be nice if the ISSNs of the articles could be included.
Otherwise, things look great! – VisionHolder « talk » 21:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! I would love to fix that sentence, but don't quite see the problem. The Code has a special definition for what is "published work", and Ray's thesis does not fall under that definition, so it is not "published in the sense of the ICZN". Ucucha 21:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe reword the first half of the sentence to read: "Because Ray's thesis does not fit the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature's (ICZN) formal definition for a "published work, ..." – VisionHolder « talk » 21:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- That's better, yes. I rewrote it to something slightly different in the article (a construction with 's is generally awkward when it's used for such a long phrase as "International Code of Zoological Nomenclature"). Ucucha 21:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe reword the first half of the sentence to read: "Because Ray's thesis does not fit the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature's (ICZN) formal definition for a "published work, ..." – VisionHolder « talk » 21:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail: