Login
Login

Talk:False potto/GA1

GA Review

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:False potto/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:False potto/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: – VisionHolder « talk » 20:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm claiming this review. Comments coming shortly. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments: Excellent article, and very clear to read for a taxon article with a lot of discussion of anatomy.

:Thanks. Ucucha 21:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

  • "excavation in the skull" – any alternative wording? Not a traditional statement for the people who aren't anatomists.
  • "Excavation" is probably not the right word. I changed it to use "depression" instead.
  • Nowak 1999 and Leutwyler 1996 are listed in short footnotes, but not in the "Literature cited".
  • Nowak added; ref = harv added for Leutwyyler.
  • The link to "Oates et al. 2008" doesn't work, and probably won't unless we start adding that feature to the various IUCN Red List ref templates. Personally, I just put news and web refs in the References section, then use notes for journals and books. It's up to you how you want to do it, though.
  • Added an anchor to fix this.
  • Unfortunately, the anchor doesn't highlight the ref, but this will have to do. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I've never used {{tl|Sfnm}} before, but for some reason the first short footnote in ref #17 doesn't work.
  • It's because I misspelled Schwartz's name as Schwarz. Fixed (also on a few other occasions).
  • Funny... I could swear I checked the spelling. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "citing C. Wild" – Do we have any information about who this is or what publication it's referring to?
  • It's a personal communication; clarified.

Other than that, it looks good to me. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

:GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
  2. :a (prose): {{GAList/check|y}} b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): {{GAList/check|y}}
  3. ::
  4. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
  5. :a (references): {{GAList/check|y}} b (citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|y}} c (OR): {{GAList/check|y}}
  6. ::
  7. It is broad in its coverage.
  8. :a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|y}} b (focused): {{GAList/check|y}}
  9. ::
  10. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
  11. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|y}}
  12. ::
  13. It is stable.
  14. :No edit wars, etc.: {{GAList/check|y}}
  15. ::
  16. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
  17. :a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): {{GAList/check|y}} b (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|y}}
  18. ::
  19. Overall:
  20. :Pass/Fail: {{GAList/check|y}}
  21. ::

Great job! Thanks for writing this primate article. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)