Talk:Tammar wallaby/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll take a look at this one and make straightforward copyedits as I go (and explain in edit summaries). I'll jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~for starters, ensure refs are complete - eg books need isbn, publisher and locations (if possible). Also, make all names in consistent format - eg Smith, J.; Jones, F.; etc.~~

actually, any reason why you don't use cite formats? They help in all the bolding and italics needed to make the refs more readable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find this way easier since I type this out on Microsoft Word first. LittleJerry (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"~~battues" - umm, what?~~

[1] LittleJerry (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I did not know that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~within taxonomy section, discuss derivation of common and alternate names.~~

Can't find where the names or deprivated. LittleJerry (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and find some - I also looked on Web of Science and there are a whopping 834 articles with this species as a key word (!!!) - much of it is DNA sequencing and hence too esoteric for general consumption I feel, but there will be some useful bits to add. Do you have university access? If not I can check some fulltexts of articles to see what can be added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. I have very limited access to fulltexts of articles. LittleJerry (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll take a look at Web of Science and see what looks promising later today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, now the relationships. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status on this review? No comments in almost a month. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I began looking at stuff the other night. A Web of Science search shows alot of material with fulltexts only available by university access. I'd meant to add it myself but have been remiss. I'll itemise some comprehensivenss issues: Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Derivation of name(s).~~

~~Closest relationships within the genus.~~

I'll get to the articles that LittleJerry can't get in another couple of days. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not meaning to be a rush, but can we please get this though? LittleJerry (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Annoyingly, the last three or four times I've tried to log onto university access it's timed out or unavailalble. Hopefully I can sort it out in next day or two. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing - chase - Williams, D. L. G . (1980). Catalogue of Pleistocene vertebrate fossils and sites in South Australia.

Trans. R. Soc. S . Aust. 104, 101-15

Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strike that - just a list. Can't access fulltext anyway.Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]