Talk:Oophaga solanensis/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: AryKun (talk · contribs) 09:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 11:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
This looks like yet another interesting article from AryKun that looks likely to meet the Good Article criteria. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- Overall, the standard of the article is high.
- It is of adequate length, with 1,379 words of readable prose.
- The lead is reasonable given the length of the article at 289 words.
- Authorship is 90.4% from the nominator with contributions from 13 other editors.
- It is currently assessed as a B class article and was a Did you know nomination that was posted on 16 May 2024.
- The first section is called Systematics. I believe that this is the same as that which is called Taxonomy in other articles. Consider whether the differences are sufficient for a different title.
- The image in the infobox has no title as there is no other information in the Wikimedia entry.
Criteria
[edit]The six good article criteria:
- It is reasonable well written.
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
- Suggest clarifying "Appendix I of CITES" in the lead.
- Suggest explaining some of the more specialised terms like tympanum in the body.
- Add appropriate verbs for agreement to "adding the species to Appendix I of CITES, establishing ex situ populations, additional research on threats and distribution, and better regulation of trade of the species."
- "Please check through instances where the species is given as plural. For example "O. solanensis have a dark black background color" and "O. solanensis have many spots" should read "…has…".
- Consider "It may occur south to the western San Juan River" Should it read "…south of the western San Juan River".
- Consider a comma before "and" in "Populations of the species are very dense and entire subpopulations are vulnerable to being wiped out by a single threat".
- Consider "The species has not been recorded from any protected areas". I believe it should read "…recorded in any protected areas".
- I believe "regulation of trade" should read "regulation of the trade".
- I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.
- it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
- It seems to comply with the Manuals of Style.
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- A reference section is included, with sources listed. It would be easier to use with a separate section listing the pages, but this is not a GA criteria.
- all inline citations are from reliable sources;
- Spot checks confirm the two Frost 2023 sources and Posso-Terranova & Andrés 2018 cover the topic.
- it contains no original research;
- All relevant statements have inline citations.
- it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
- Earwig gives a 0% chance of copyright violation, which is extremely impressive.
- it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- It is broad in its coverage
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- It has a neutral point of view.
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- The article seems generally balanced and covers issues like the illegal trade in the frog dispassionately.
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- It is stable.
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- There is no evidence of edit wars.
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
- The images have appropriate CC tags. All are reviewed apart from Oophaga solanensis 126955852 (cropped).jpg that is extracted from Oophaga solanensis 126955852.jpg. The latter is also reviewed.
- images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- The images are appropriate. Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT text for accessibility.
- images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
@AryKun: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)