| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: SUM1 ( talk · contribs) 04:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
This will be my first review. The only extinct animal articles I've made substantial edits to were extinct heterodont clams in April, so I'll probably ask for a second opinion. I decided it was only fair after I nominated 3 more articles, so I want to relieve the backlog. SUM1 ( talk) 04:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 16:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- They are now that I've edited them. Had a few issues with "processs", no spaces around en dashes, "widen" instead of "widened" and a few other things.
- B. It complies with the
manual of style guidelines for
lead sections,
layout,
words to watch,
fiction, and
list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it
verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
- B. All
in-line citations are from
reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or
likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the
scientific citation guidelines:
- Nothing looks controversial, reclassifications are presented clearly.
- C. It contains
no original research:
- Did not see any. Everything was sourced.
- D. It contains no
copyright violations nor
plagiarism:
- Everything was originally-worded.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the
main aspects of the topic:
- It appears to address everything that's important and known about Castorocauda.
- B. It stays
focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see
summary style):
- None of the detail is unnecessary; all is relevant.
- A. It addresses the
main aspects of the topic:
- Is it
neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by
images?
- A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid fair use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
- All images are permitted.
- B. Images are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions:
- The captions are very good.
- A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid fair use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Well I'm just going to pass this article, since there are clearly no outstanding problems anymore and no one came to offer a second opinion. It presents an all-round description of Castorocauda with minimal-to-no available information left out and good grammar and organisation. I consider it highly unlikely to be contested. SUM1 ( talk) 00:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)