Talk:Eastern mole/GA1

GA Review

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

References

Two problems with the references:

1. There are far too many parenthetical references (stuff like: (Johnson, 1967)) amid the footnotes. These should be converted to footnotes. Which brings us to the second problem.

2. The parenthetical references don't refer to items in the reference list. This prevents the reader from making meaningful use of the references, but it also makes a reader wonder if the text was lifted, parenthetical references and all, from some other work.

Either way, this is not up to the level of a GA. Reviewer: Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The text doesn't seem to be copied or closely paraphrased from those sources which are online; many of the sources cited parenthetically can be found easily. —innotata 17:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in the GA criteria—or in the Manual of Style as a whole—that says articles cannot use parenthetical referencing. Ucucha 17:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And as a matter of fact, there is only one such reference in the entire article. Ucucha 17:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The references issue has been significantly improved (see the revision history). Still, "can be found easily" isn't a criterion for Wikipedia, and while parentheticals are OK, they're NOT OK if they don't refer to something in the biblio.

Is this review still going, or does someone else need to jump in here? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Clearly not; I'll review this tonight then and pass/hold/fail it based on what I see. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is being "Reviewed". Isn't the template supposed to be replaced if it is? If there are problems with the article, list them here so I can take care of them then put the article "On Hold". I think editors are typically given a week to make revisions and corrections. Thanks! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I've noticed that in some reviews; all that needs to be done is the article reviewed, it put on hold, and it should be done within a week or two, rather than arguing on one point for weeks then finally getting to the actual article. Anyway, here's the issues I found:

• The citation needed tag needs to be addressed.
  • Deleted. This was in the article when I took it on and I never found a source for it. It's not critical to understanding the subject. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• "0.74 ha" what does the ha abbreviation mean? might need a link so those not used to that know.
  • "ha" is the abbr. for "hectare", a land measurement. This is retained in the article but converted to acres. Both hectares and acres are displayed. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

These are the only issues I found; it's a solid article. I'll put it on hold and pass ti when the issues are fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good now, so I'll pass the article as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)