Talk:Cicada/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Atsme (talk · contribs) 11:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a . the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~Some copyvio concerns but may be~~ the result of mirroring. Used Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Also, the following would read much better as two sentences: Other species are aposematic; unlike the majority of cicadas which rely on camouflage when at rest and are nocturnal, the Malaysian Huechys sanguinea has conspicuous red and black warning coloration, is diurnal, and boldly flies about in full view of possible predators Well written and informative, syntax well structured, no spelling errors. I think a three column table for Genera would read easier but the collapsible single column works just fine.
	1b . it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	In the section Taxonomy and diversity, a numerical conversion is needed. RESOLVED
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Good referencing
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Proper use of in-line citations using quality sources
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Topic is covered well and in-depth
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Topic is well focused, sections are tight, and the prose doesn't wander or ramble
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article edit history indicates good collaboration and talk page is free of any issues
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are captioned and properly attributed
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Good collection of images to enhance the overall reading experience
	7. Overall assessment.	Article is very well done, and an easy promotion to GA

Thank you for taking on this review. I have made the two alterations currently suggested above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. The article was a pleasure to read. Nicely done!! Atsme^📞📧 10:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many thanks from me, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - And me! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major errors[edit]

It seems that the review did not look into contemporary reliable sources to identify gaps or quality of referencing. Some of the errors pointed out in the talk page are rather severe. Perhaps the editors would like to give it a more careful examination. I have added a few which I fixed. Shyamal (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cicadas claimed as mostly nocturnal - not at all correct
Cicadas claimed not to stridulate - not true

Not so major - already fixed. If you see any other errors, you are free to contribute to improving the article. A GA review is not the same as a FA review. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]