Talk:Argentodites/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * 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:
 * Thanks for the review; I've replied to all concerns below. Ucucha 15:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Thanks for the review; I've replied to all concerns below. Ucucha 15:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Thanks for the review; I've replied to all concerns below. Ucucha 15:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review; I've replied to all concerns below. Ucucha 15:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "gondwanatheres may themselves be multituberculates." Perhaps "however"? I'm assuming the "two teams" don't think that? I see now I'm wrong- perhaps that could be made a little clearer?
 * It is better now?
 * "is late Cretaceous" Is there not an adjective form? "late Cretacean" or something?
 * No, Cretaceous is correct (and is, in fact, originally an adjective).
 * "two teams argued" Who are these people?
 * One of the mentions of that is now gone; in the lead, I don't think it's particularly relevant to name the scientists.
 * Some more context with regards to what enamel prisms are would be good- it's meaningless to most, I would imagine, and the article doesn't exist.
 * I added a gloss.
 * Category:Gondwanatheres? Category:Prehistoric mammals or a subcategory? A subcat of Category:Extinct mammals by continent?
 * I added one for SAm mammals. I am hesitant to add the gondwanathere cat, because it may not be a gondwanathere.
 * I can't help but feel there is a little cross-over between the first and last sections. Perhaps keep the first section to its discovery and the initial paper, and move all the disputes about its identity to the last one?
 * Done. Ucucha 15:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've made some quick formatting fixes on the literature cited section (it may also want some bold, but I haven't done that) as the article titles should be in quotemarks, while the journal name should be italicised. I'm happy to promote now- good job, the effort you've put in here is clear. J Milburn (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)