Talk:Dusky dolphin/GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's go. I'll do straightfoward changes as I go, and make sure you take a look at the edit summaries which explain what I do (I might miss a few examples, so if you catch others all the better). I'll jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dusky dolphins are known for their remarkable acrobatics.. - better to keep all singular if possible rather than switch singular/plural
 * Yes check.svg Done


 * ref 4 needs initials of first names to have fullstops after them (check other refs too), and the species name should be italicized in the ref title.


 * make ref formatting consistent - Smith, J.; Jones, F.; and so on...(i.e. remove & etc) Refs 28 (fullstops after initials), Ref 26 (names in surname, first name order etc.), and more
 * Yes check.svg Done


 * standardise page ranges in references - I read somewhere on MOS that two digits is best in ranges within the 100 so to speak - i.e. 105-08, not 105-108, nor 105-8. Looks good. internally consistent is most important thing here.
 * Yes check.svg Done


 * have a read and take a pick where you want echolocation to link to - possibly animal echolocation. Also, braodband I think needs a link to a page or wiktionary definition or something.
 * Yes check.svg Done


 * I was surprised to see that the first link to genus was way down in the Description. I suspect some mention of the dusky dolphin's placement in the genus should be in the taxonomy section. Err, better, I might look into this some more. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done


 * FYI, I linked circumpolar to the wiktionary definition as it was better than the circumpolar wikipedia page which was a disambiguation.


 *  although currents catches have dropped from ones in the 1970s... "although current catches have dropped from ones in the 1970s" ?
 * Yes check.svg Done


 * any information on colouration of immature dolphins for the Description section?
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Couldn't find anything

Okay - getting there/ Have to hop off now. Back later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay this paper is interesting. I've read the fulltext and it shows the closest species obliquidens as a sister taxon. It is mentioned on hte [[Lagenorhynchus page, but needs to be mentioned on this one in a way that is relevant to the species. The May-Collado paper should be looked at too.
 * Yes check.svg Done

I also found this with a good bit on dusky dolphins - goos stuff about skull morphology. If you can't see the preview pages I will add, but it would be good for you to take a look if you can. Also this is a pointer to other material. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Not done: Don't have the pages. LittleJerry (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny how google books does that. I'll add the stuff myself. Some cool stuff there. I need to do a bit of scouring around to look at comprehensiveness. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I found them. Yes check.svg Done LittleJerry (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry to jump in, but by skimming the article, I've noticed inconsistencies regarding capitalization. Some places, particularly the lede, use "Dusky dolphin", while other sections simply put "dusky dolphin." Not a huge issue at all, but should be fixed. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree - consensus is now for lower case - I'd do it but am the reviewer and having issues with (lack of) free time over this weekend. Anyone is welcome to lowercase it all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done

One cite needed tag and I think we're done then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done LittleJerry (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: - look, it's now broad, but has a little way to go before being comprehensive for FAC. Despite this, it qualifies under the GA criteria and is a good staging point for a future push to FA status. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)