Jump to content

Talk:Pelagic thresher/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. It is an interesting, well written article. My concerns are the following:

  • "but can be distinguished by the white of its belly not extending over the bases of its pectoral fins." - I don't like this wording as it is clumsy but I could not think of a variant. Perhaps you can.
  • Changed to "...by the dark, rather than white, color over the bases of its pectoral fins"
  • I removed some wikilinks that went to disambig pages, eg. lifespan. Linking to a disambig page is rarely justified.
  • OK
  • I am a little concerned about all the fish terms (WP:JARGON). For the most part you have done a good job of explaining, but any more you can do would be great.
  • Not sure what can be done; changed "labial furrows" to just "furrows", since that's what they are.

Mattisse (Talk) 00:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Final GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Clearly written b (MoS): Follows MoS
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): OR
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Covers major aspects b (focused): Remains focused on article topic
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: NPOV
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Congratulations. Another fine article.

Mattisse (Talk) 01:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]