Talk:Electric fish/GA1

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 13:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

This looks like an interesting article on a topic that I feel will be of interest to many readers. I will start a review very shortly. simongraham (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'll respond to any comments promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments
This is a stable and well-written article. 69.2% of authorship is by Chiswick Chap. It is currently ranked B class.


 * The text is clear and concise.
 * It is written in a summary style, consistent with relevant Manuals of Style
 * The lead is of appropriate length and contains both a summary of the article and some interesting facts about the African sharptooth catfish and Bluntnose knifefish to encourage further reading.
 * Citations seem to be thorough.
 * References appear to be from reputable sources.
 * Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 0.0% chance of copyright violation.
 * The article is of appropriate length with 1,590 words of readable prose.
 * Text seems to be neutral and shows a balanced global perspective.
 * There is no evidence of edit wars.
 * Images have appropriate licensing and CC tags.
 * Spot checks confirm that the sampled journal articles listed support the article.

Recommendations

 * Link African sharptooth catfish (Clarias gariepinus) in the lead.
 * Done.
 * Possibly link Hypopomidae for the bluntnose knifefish in the lead.
 * Done.
 * Possibly link electrolocation (although this is currently a redirect to part of the article on Electroreception and electrogenesis).
 * Done, it's clearly helpful to the reader here.
 * Link gymnotiformes at the first mention.
 * Done.

Awesome work. Please ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * all done! Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. I'll start the assessment now. simongraham (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Assessment
The six good article criteria:
 * 1) It is reasonable well written.
 * the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
 * it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * all inline citations are from reliable sources;
 * it contains no original research;
 * it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
 * it stays ffocused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
 * 1) It has a neutral point of view.
 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
 * images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Congratulations. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass  simongraham (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)