Talk:Archaeoindris/GA1

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 18:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll review this soon! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate it. –  Maky  « talk » 20:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a very well written article, mostly understandable even for someone like me due to your clear explanations. Quite interesting. Just a few questions about wording:
 * review


 * "deliberate climber that visited the ground to travel." - what is a deliberate climber?
 * A "deliberate climber" is literally what it sounds like. They move slowly and each foothold is carefully, and deliberately selected.  Think of a sloth... or better yet, a slow loris.  "Slow and deliberate climber" is both a technical term and also the most basic description I can come up with—in fact, that's what the team who wrote the "Slow loris" article used to describe them.  I guess I could add a brief subsection about it on Arboreal locomotion and link to that...  –  Maky  « talk » 00:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "one of the most speciose of all the subfossil lemur" - what is "speciose"?
 * It means there are many species: dictionary entry for -ose – Maky  « talk » 00:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Furthermore, Lamberton did not realize that the smaller femurs he instead assigned to Archaeoindris belonged to a juvenile" - I think this sentence could be clearer. Could the "instead" be removed? Or moved to the end of the sentence?
 * Removed it. I can't remember why I included it.  Does it still read clearly? –  Maky  « talk » 00:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it does. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I made a few edits that you're free to revert:
 * Very good edits, minus the italicizing of the family names. (Only genus and species name need italics.) Thanks! –  Maky  « talk » 00:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Everything else looks good. It looks like a lot of work went into this article. I'll put this review on hold while you respond to my few comments.

MathewTownsend (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
 * b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
 * b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * c. no original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * no edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass!
 * Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate the review. –  Maky  « talk » 02:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass!
 * Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate the review. –  Maky  « talk » 02:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass!
 * Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate the review. –  Maky  « talk » 02:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate the review. –  Maky  « talk » 02:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)