Talk:Viatkogorgon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 21:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this, though right off the bat I must express concern with the length of the lead. It does not summarise the article as a single sentence and is in great need of expanding. ♦ jaguar 21:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I didn't think it would be taken so quickly after the nomination (often it can take weeks or months), so there is still a few bits and pieces left to fix, I'll try to finish the intro today. But thanks for taking it up! FunkMonk (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @FunkMonk: I've just read through the article and could only raise two minor points:

"The very complete" - seems superfluous. How can something that is complete be very complete?

Changed to "almost complete". FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"holotype represent the same tooth position of each side (I5)" - what does this mean?

Tried with "the only two intact incisors of the holotype is the same tooth of each side (I5)", is it better? FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. ♦ jaguar 22:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is comprehensive, readable for someone unfamiliar like me and consistently well-written. It is also adequately sourced and structured, meeting the GA criteria. I would have passed this outright had it not been for the lead, however. Per WP:LEAD, the lead must summarise the article and with it standing as a single sentence unfortunately holds it back from meeting all parts of the GA criteria. I will leave this on hold until that part is addressed, after that this will definitely be good to go. The shortness of this review demonstrates the good job you've done with this! ♦ jaguar 22:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm in the process of expanding the intro, and I also want to provide more explanations for anatomical terms. So I'll ping you when I'm done, either tonight or tomorrow. I've responded to your two points above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: now I've expanded the intro and tweaked other areas of the article, mainly explaining anatomical terms. And of course, feel free to point out any other issues you encounter, as this will be taken to FAC later on. FunkMonk (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks FunkMonk. The lead looks brilliant now; it summarises the article perfectly and is comprehensive itself. Saber-teeth points to a disambiguation page - I don't have the knowledge to guess which is the correct term! I skimmed through the article again and couldn't find anything to note nor suggest for the upcoming FAC, I'm afraid. Hopefully there will be reviewers with more knowledge in the subject than me. I honestly think it's close to being FA-material as it is.

♦ jaguar 10:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! For your information, I put it up for peer review at the palaeontology project before I nominated it for GA, and it is also getting some expert views there:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]