From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article (
|
visual edit |
history ) ·
Article talk (
|
history ) ·
Watch
Reviewer:
Dunkleosteus77 (
talk ·
contribs )
22:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
reply
GA review (see
here for what the criteria are, and
here for what they are not)
Overall well written article, and not too much literature out there on it since the taxon is only 3 years old
User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk
22:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
reply
It is reasonably well written .
a (prose, spelling, and grammar) : b (
MoS for
lead ,
layout ,
word choice ,
fiction , and
lists ) :
I did some minor copyediting earlier
It is factually accurate and
verifiable .
a (
reference section ) : b (citations to
reliable sources ) : c (
OR ) : d (
copyvio and
plagiarism ) :
Why do you cite Live Science?
I cited Live Science for the estimated total body length given in the press release, as the paper itself only provided a presacral length. I meant to cite both for each, though I managed to misplace the Live Science ref for the presacral length by mistake. I've corrected the order of the citations, though if it's better to remove the Live Science ref all together I'll be happy to oblige.
DrawingDinosaurs (
talk |
contribs )
13:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
reply
I wouldn't trust a number only mentioned in Live Science. It doesn't make any sense how they'd approximate the length of the tail anyways
User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk
15:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
reply
Fair dos, I've cut the reference to total body length.
DrawingDinosaurs (
talk |
contribs )
16:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
reply
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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have
fair use rationales ) : b (
appropriate use with
suitable captions ) :
Overall :
Pass/Fail :