Talk:Arctodus/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: The Morrison Man (talk · contribs) 21:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reading through the article and will provide notes within 24 hours. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Having read over the page there are a few major issues I'd like you to address before I can move along with the rest of the review. Most prominently I have some concerns in relation to WP:Readability. The guideline advises to trim an article or split out content when a page reaches more than 9000 words, which Arctodus at its current size clears easily (11145). Looking at the page, this should be solvable by going over some sections again and keeping an eye on overdetailing, in adherance with WP:Summary style. In my opinion there's three sections of the article that could benefit most from cleanup, namely Diet, Paleoecology and Relationships with other bears, all of which I think go above the required amount of detail. I would advise checking the rest of the article aswell. Should you want more input on what could potentially be simplified or removed, let me know.

As for my second point, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, I also have some issues with the way the page is structured. The sections on hibernation and diet should arguably be included under paleobiology, and a number of small subheadings like the one for paws could be left out. You've also created a number of new sections (meaning I haven't seen similarly titled ones on articles for extinct animals before), but seeing as they're well-sourced I don't see any issues with those except for aforementioned overdetailing.

To sum it up, I can see that you've put a lot of effort in this article, which should be evident to anyone from the source list alone. However, because the issues I mentioned above do clash with two of the six good article criteria, I was doubting whether or not the page should be failed. But, the article as it stands is a good base layer. If you can sort out these issues I think it can become an article of very high quality, hence my decision not to fail it. If you have any further questions, let me know. More detailed feedback per section will follow after I've seen some progress on the two major issues. The Morrison Man (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the lack of edits I have placed the review on hold. You have seven more days to fix the issues addressed before I'll have to cut the review short. The Morrison Man (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperTah Final reminder, you have one day left to reply, otherwise I will have to fail the article. The Morrison Man (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Apologies, I have been travelling on and off intensively over the last month. So glad to have email notifications on user mentions!

Thank you for the initial review. I will go over it shortly. SuperTah (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperTah Hi there, just want to tell you that we highly encourage you to put talk pages of articles on your watchlist the next time you nominate an article. You didn't leave any responses or edit activity for GAN concerns brought up on the Arctodus talk page back in January, so we had no clue if you wanted to work on the GAN nomination still. Some GAN reviewers are not as generous, so please make sure to respond in a timely fashion next time. Thanks! PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been four days and I still haven't seen any signs of progress. You have three more days to show otherwise before I'll have to close the review. The Morrison Man (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No further activity. I've decided to fail the article for GA. Before nominating again I would advise taking care of the points listed above. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]