Talk:Doedicurus/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 22:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Criteria
1. Prose

2. Verifiability

3. Depth of Coverage ✅

4. Neutral ✅

5. Stable ✅

6. Illustrations ✅

7. Miscellaneous ✅

Comments
1.
 * Link carapace in the lead, as well as the first mention in the prose. It's not that common of a term, at least for readers without a robust biology background (currently linked at the second point in the prose)
 * done  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 20:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Link Smilodon at the first instance, rather than the second
 * done  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 20:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Camels is a duplink
 * fixed  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 20:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

2.
 * Note a should probably have a citation directly attached to it, as it's making a statement that an assumption is incorrect. Even if it's from the same source as where the information in the sentence the note accompanies comes from, it should have a citation to make it clear where the information is coming from.
 * done  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 20:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Spot check on the refs should all checked instances supported by the reference and all linked refs tests working.

3.

4.

5.

6.
 * Image licensing looks good. Consider adding alt text, but that's not a GA requirement

7.

Placing on hold, just a little tightening up to do here. Good work. Hog Farm (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)