Talk:Dracopristis/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I'll pick this up. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): 
c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Images:
- File:Diorama of a Carboniferous seafloor - crinoids 4 (45555571862).jpg - this looks like a reasonably modern 3D work in a museum - has the copyright holder of the diorama released it into the pubic domain?
- Refs:
- What makes https://shark-references.com/about a reliable source? I see that Straube is academically trained - not seeing Pollerspock's credentials though...
- What makes https://www.gktoday.in/topic/dracopristis-hoffmanorum-godzilla-shark-discovered-in-new-mexico/ a reliable source?
- Likewise these two. WP:RSP says that researchgate is "generally unreliable" and that "ResearchGate is a social network that hosts a repository of user-generated publications, including preprints. ResearchGate does not perform fact checking or peer reviewing, and is considered a self-published source. Verify whether a paper on ResearchGate is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on ResearchGate)."
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350889762_CTENACANTHIFORM_SHARKS_FROM_THE_LATE_PENNSYLVANIAN_MISSOURIAN_TINAJAS_MEMBER_OF_THE_ATRASADO_FORMATION_CENTRAL_NEW_MEXICO
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350890018_REVIEW_OF_THE_LATE_PENNSYLVANIAN_FISH_ASSEMBLAGE_FROM_THE_KINNEY_BRICK_QUARRY_NEW_MEXICO
- Lead:
- Seaofblue with "is a genus of extinct ctenacanthiform chondrichthyes that lived around 307 million years ago, during the middle to late Carboniferous." perhaps break up like "is a genus of extinct ctenacanthiform (spined fish) chondrichthyes (fish wit cartilage) that lived around 307 million years ago, during the Pennsylvanian sub-period of the Carboniferous period."? This would also help with jargon.
- Discovery:
- "honor of Ralph and Jeanette Hoffman who helped the research to be conducted" - awkward phrasing - maybe "honor of Ralph and Jeanette Hoffman who helped conduct the research" or "honor of Ralph and Jeanette Hoffman who helped the fund the research"?
- Classification:
- I'm pretty sure "stuides" in "multiple cladistic stuides were preformed" is a typo, but not being sure, better to ask than edit it and have me be wrong...
- Paleocology:
- ""two hybodontiforms, two holocephalans, three actinopterygians, and a megalichthyoform sarcopterygian,"" this direct quote needs a citation attached to it directly to tell us who we're quoting.
- I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
.jpg){kind=link}
- I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, I have fixed the problems you have addressed, I have gotten rid of the GKtoday sources, I have fixed up the research gate sources, and I fixed the typos as well as adding to the article to make it easier to read. One thing of note is the crinoid image, I checked the description and it says that it was published under the CC 2.0 license, As far as I'm aware I don't think it's on the public domain. If this image is a copyright violation I will gladly remove it. Is there anything else that needs to be fixed?. Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Ealdgyth Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Has this pingged you yet?. Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it has. It'll be a bit before I get to reviewing your changes, perhaps even tomorrow. My wiki time has to be worked into time when I'm working on other stuff. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- ok got it, take your time. Fossiladder13 (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- The photograph of a three-dimensional object can be released without affecting the underlying copyright of the object being photographed. Normally, this isn't an issue with museum photographs as the creation of the object being photographed is long enough ago that its not an issue (i.e. photographing a Renaissance sculpture is not an issue because the copyright on the sculpture has long since expired). Unfortunately, modern museum dioramas/images are usually copyrighted unless the museum has expressly released their copyright. I don't think it's worth the bother to try and keep this image when the diorama is likely not released into the public domain or licensed with a license we can use on wikipedia. And trying to claim fair use would be unlikely to work either. I say remove it. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- got it Fossiladder13 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- The photograph of a three-dimensional object can be released without affecting the underlying copyright of the object being photographed. Normally, this isn't an issue with museum photographs as the creation of the object being photographed is long enough ago that its not an issue (i.e. photographing a Renaissance sculpture is not an issue because the copyright on the sculpture has long since expired). Unfortunately, modern museum dioramas/images are usually copyrighted unless the museum has expressly released their copyright. I don't think it's worth the bother to try and keep this image when the diorama is likely not released into the public domain or licensed with a license we can use on wikipedia. And trying to claim fair use would be unlikely to work either. I say remove it. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- ok got it, take your time. Fossiladder13 (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it has. It'll be a bit before I get to reviewing your changes, perhaps even tomorrow. My wiki time has to be worked into time when I'm working on other stuff. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Has this pingged you yet?. Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Ealdgyth Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, I have fixed the problems you have addressed, I have gotten rid of the GKtoday sources, I have fixed up the research gate sources, and I fixed the typos as well as adding to the article to make it easier to read. One thing of note is the crinoid image, I checked the description and it says that it was published under the CC 2.0 license, As far as I'm aware I don't think it's on the public domain. If this image is a copyright violation I will gladly remove it. Is there anything else that needs to be fixed?. Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)