Talk:Crustacean/GA1

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

GA Sweeps: On hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a GA. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed.

1. Although it is not required by GA criteria (so it will not be a requirement for the review), it would be beneficial to add alt text to the images. See WP:ALT for assistance.
 * ✅ (mostly). I have added alt texts to all the main images. I haven't added one to the anatomical diagram, or to the purely decorative Haeckel images, partly because I wasn't sure how useful such a description would be, but mostly just because it seemed really difficult. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

2. The lead is long enough to support the article, but for a better balance move some of the sentences from the first paragraph to the second. It looks awkward with the large paragraph followed by the brief one. In addition, the lead should not introduce other information that is not covered in the article. So the information about the carcinology should also be mentioned elsewhere as well.
 * The lead has been unified by Stemonitis. The information about carcinology etc would best be portrayed in a section on etymology. While the rest of the lead reflects the rest of the text in the spirit of WP:LEAD, IMHO it seems excessive to create a seperate section for etymology as it would contain just a couple of sentences. One odd fact may be kept in the lead without disturbing the balance of the rest of the article. AshLin (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

3. "Crustaceans are among the most successful animals..." Successful in terms of what?
 * ✅ I have reworded this as "ubiquitous", in an attempt to convey that the ecological breadth of the two groups is similar, and that they fill similar roles in the two environments. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

4. For all of the inline citations, instead of formatting them as "word [1].", they should be formatted as "word.[1]". Be sure to fix all occurrences for consistency.
 * ✅ (This issue is still the subject of argument at WT:FN, so I'm not sure it should be a GA requirement.) --Stemonitis (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two preferred methods of having it before or after the punctuation, and they are both allowed if used consistently. However for this article, the sentence was followed by a gap and then the citation followed by the punctuation. That spacing looked awkward and caused some of the citations and punctuation to appear on a separate line. Anyway, thanks for fixing it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

5. Throughout the article there are several one or two-sentence paragraphs. Either expand on these or incorporate them into another paragraph to improve the flow of the article.
 * ✅ --Stemonitis (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

6. "The scientific study of these crustaceans is known as carcinology." Carcinology does not need to be bolded here, just the article's name.
 * ✅ --Stemonitis (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

7. I tagged File:2005crustacean.PNG to be moved to Commons. If you have an account there, consider moving the image over so that other language Wikipedias can use the image.
 * ✅ --Stemonitis (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

8. The paragraphs within the "Structure" section should all be sourced. In addition, so should the "Fossil record" and "Consumption by man" sections. Source any statement that a reader who has no knowledge of the topic may question.
 * ✅ --Stemonitis (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

9. "There is some doubt whether this is a derived state, as had been traditionally assumed..." Assumed by who?
 * ✅ – that clause has been removed. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

10. Is it possible to find a more recent stat for the "10,000,000 tons were produced in 2005" figure (along with the other stats in the paragraph)?
 * ✅. The FAO has only published up to 2007 so far, but I've included that. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

11. If possible, see if any additional external links can be found to support the article for readers who would like to pursue further information on the topic.
 * ✅ --Stemonitis (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. Once the above issues are addressed, I'll help do a final copyedit of the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I fear it will take me more than a week at my current rate, but rest assured that I am working on it. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Kept
Good work addressing the issues. I went through and made some minor changes, please review my edits. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It may be beneficial to update some of the older access dates for the citations. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)