Talk:Lepidoptera/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: two found and fixed manually. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: three found and tagged. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

CRITERIA 1 - It is reasonably well written.


 * (a) (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * ' 'and is among the four largest, most successful orders, along with the Hymenoptera, Diptera, and the Coleoptera'' Does the reference say stat it is one the four "most successful" - if si then it needs attribution in the text, if not then "successful" is a weasel word
 * Successful meaning that they are the most diverse, should I replace it with this? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-=  01:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * ' 'holometabolous, or undergo complete metamorphosis. '' suggest rephrasing - e.g. "holometabolous, meaning that they undergo complete metamorphosis. " they are not alternatives, but are the same thing.
 * ✅ Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-=  01:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The caterpillars which hatch from this many eggs can mow down entire acres of crops. not very encyclopaedic language.
 * ✅ Is this better? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-=  02:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The origins of the English word moth are more clear, which comes from Old English moððe" poor grammar - "deriving from" or similar would be better.
 * ✅ Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-=  02:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Amongst the northern-most of butterflies and moths is the  "northern-most of"?
 * ✅ meaning they are the most northern found species, though I changed it to make it more clear. <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"><font color="#66FF00">Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  02:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The males of some species in the butterfly family Nymphalidae, the fore-legs are greatly reduced and are not used for walking or perching ungrammatical
 * Is this better? <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"><font color="#66FF00">Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  02:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * forming the extraordinary variety seen in color. poor grammar
 * ✅ <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"><font color="#66FF00">Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  02:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The largest superfamily, Noctuidae, has the wings modified to act as Tympanal or hearing organs "have" not "has"
 * ✅ <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"><font color="#66FF00">Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  11:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The abdomen, which is less sclerotized than the thorax explain "sclerotized" or better still use a more accessible word.
 * The word "sclerotized", has already appeared earlier in subsection "Head" where it has been linked and explained in the manner suggested by you, hence it is not required to do this for every subsequent occurrence of the word. May we consider this as done?AshLin (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Missed that, OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * ' 'In the females of more primitive moths,'' more primitive than what?
 * ✅ Changed from "primitive" to "basal" (more accurate) and reworded. AshLin (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In reproductive system of butterflies and moths, the male genitalia are complex and unclear.  Grammar again
 * I don't see it. <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"><font color="#66FF00">Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  11:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Added the word "the". Jezhotwells (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * (b) OK, what I want you to do is to read this out aloud, a sentence at a time and see where the prose can be rendered more literately. When you have got the prose into reasonable shape, I will complete the review. Currently it is not fit for GA. I am watching this page so please respond here *at the bottom of the page) when the copy-edit is complete.
 * I'm not good with grammar (as you can see I make a lot of mistakes) but I read through it and everything looks in order. <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"><font color="#66FF00">Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  11:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

CRITERIA 2 - It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * (a) (references):
 * (b) (citations to reliable sources):
 * (c) (OR):

All check out, RS, no evidence of OR CRITERIA 3 - It is broad in its coverage. Thorough with unnecessary detail
 * (a) (major aspects):
 * (b) (focused):

CRITERIA 4 - It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:

CRITERIA 5 - It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. Captioned and licensed.
 * (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days for a copy-edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I think this passes muster now. If you wish to take this to FAC, please consider the article length, currently 110Kb, and a through copy-edit to really polish up the prose.  Listing as GA. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)