Talk:"Ekbletomys"/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Starting review... comments forthcoming.

Reviewer: –  VisionHolder  « talk »  20:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Pass, with comments: I fixed a few things that I felt needed attention. The prose is a little dense in places, but that's to be expected in such a specialist article. I converted one overly long sentence into a list, which I hope you find acceptable. Additionally, the sentence mentioning the ICZN could probably be clarified, particularly regarding the part, "in the sense of the [ICZN]". Since I know you will fix this promptly, I will not hold the review for this one minor problem. Lastly, to reiterate my comments from the Trachylepis tschudii review:


 * 1) I personally prefer all references and cited literature to use the  templates so that if, for instance, someone wanted to add an ISSN or ISBN, then it could be done easily.
 * 2) Following from the previous point, it would be nice if the ISSNs of the articles could be included.

Otherwise, things look great! –  VisionHolder  « talk »  21:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! I would love to fix that sentence, but don't quite see the problem. The Code has a special definition for what is "published work", and Ray's thesis does not fall under that definition, so it is not "published in the sense of the ICZN". Ucucha 21:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe reword the first half of the sentence to read: "Because Ray's thesis does not fit the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature's (ICZN) formal definition for a "published work, ..." –   VisionHolder  « talk »  21:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's better, yes. I rewrote it to something slightly different in the article (a construction with 's is generally awkward when it's used for such a long phrase as "International Code of Zoological Nomenclature"). Ucucha 21:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: