Talk:Barnacle/GA1

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

Reviewer: Lightburst (talk · contribs) 01:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I look forward to reviewing Lightburst (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * for the lead this sentence does not seem encyclopedic, (Some 2,100 species have been described.)
 * Well, given that the average reader may well think there is exactly one species of barnacle, or if they are well up with culture two species (acorn and goose barnacles), the fact will come across as easily understood and quite a surprise: certainly an encyclopedic result.
 * My concern was for the word "some" Can we use a word like approximately or similar? Lightburst (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's quite proper British English.
 * I am not familiar with BE, it seemed inexact, but so is approximately. Lightburst (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can remove the citation from the lead and cite that sentence in the body
 * It's already in the body; I've removed the ref from the lead.

Some items to consider

 * 1) In Etymology, barnacles and geese was unknown - suggest (were) unknown
 * Fixed.
 * 1) In Anatomy The cirri, extend to filter food should it be extends?
 * Cirri is plural. Singular cirrus.
 * 1) Body, This natural cement is able to withstand  suggest just saying (can) withstand
 * Done.
 * 1) Body, penis to body suggest hyphenating
 * Done.
 * 1) Body, One group of stalked barnacles have adapted, suggest (has) instead of have
 * Done.
 * 1) The Earwig check has two high results but they are both copies of this article
 * Noted.


 * Such an interesting article. Lightburst (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The article gets many views every day, and yet it is stable. Lightburst (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you!
 * Thank you for your edits, it is pleasure to read your work. Well illustrated too. Lightburst (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Many images and I see you even made one.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Many images and I see you even made one.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Many images and I see you even made one.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: