Talk:Scyllarides latus/GA1

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :) I will be reviewing the article. The way I like to review is to work on a specific or individual problem area of the article at a time, instead of everything all at once... which I sort of dislike doing. heh. So, first up; the lead section is quite skinny. Let's fatten him up! Per WP:LEAD, the lead should represent/summarize every aspect of the subject; a 'mini-article'. There are many uncovered areas in the lead; please expand it fully :-) That'll do us for now... and no hurry! Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how long you think it should be. I've included a sentence for each of the important sections, and it's certainly better than it was. I consider the type specimen information to be interesting, but not really central to the topic, so I've left that out of the lead. Let me know what you think. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmm... the lead is about there :) Just needs a mention of its substrate/habitat, and predators. Also, we need a more complete Taxonomy section, which would entail either expanding the Type specimen section to include what/when/why/who placed the initial specimen into Scyllarides, and the backstory into the S. latus speciation; or having that info. as a main Taxonomy section with Type specimen as a subsection of it. I see that WP:ARTH doesn't really have an assertive MOS for sectioning, but organism articles as a rule (as I know you're aware) flesh out the discoverer/author/journalistic mechanics behind the naming and placement of species. That might be a lot to ask, as I'm not certain how much source material there is; we'll wait for your feedback of course :) Once the article had more on the naming/placement, that should also get a lead mention.-- Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I can work on that, but it may take me a few days to get round to it. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think now? --Stemonitis (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very fine work, and I especially like how well-written the Taxonomy section is :) Just three minor things left, and I'm thinking we're ready: in Life Cycle, define 'naupliosoma'; in Taxonomy, define 'sculpturation' and 'tubercles'.-- Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've explained the naupliosoma (and contrasted it with the phyllosoma), re-worded the "sculpturation" sentence to use more straightforward words (I hope), and added a short parenthetical description of "tubercles" in the taxonomy section. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good job! I'm going to ga pass it! It's been nice working with you, and now... it's paperwork time for me :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Scyllarides latus passes this review, and has been upgraded to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: Pass