Talk:Locust Plague of 1874/GA1

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

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 05:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm running out of quips to begin these reviews. Review start.

Copy-vios

 * Nothing of note, Earwig gives the all clear
 * I'll do occasional spot checks, I'll flag anything problematic

Images

 * So there are actually two versions of this same image. I recommend swapping with this one and noming the current one for deletion. The linked image is slightly better quality and a more specific copyright rational.
 * Consider adding an image or two from Rocky Mountain locust
 * 'Cartoon photograph' is a nondescript caption, please specify more

Prose

 * The population of Rocky Mountain locusts continued to decline each year after 1874 and in spring 1875, many of the hatched locust eggs died due to frost, leading to their extinction Bit to comma happy, please break up into two sentences.
 * This sentence implies that the frost was the sole reason for extinction.


 * 'the Indian Territory' specify
 * " theorized that a range of coniferous timber... " Why?
 * " in 1880 that the infestation" which infestation?
 * 'were in piles' is this the intended terminology?
 * 'turning them the color of their excrement' is this necessary?
 * This whole first paragraph of Damage and the Results paragraph could use a bit more complex sentence structure. They flow very awkwardly.
 * 'Farmers made meals out of the locusts.' relate this back to the the recipe statement if possible. It sorta comes out of nowhere and feels awkwardly placed in.
 * 'leading to their extinction' by when?
 * Locusts continued to cause more infestations, including Albert's swarm, until insecticides were created during World War II is this sentence necessary? It seemly contradicts the claim that the locust went extinct. Albert's swarm was already mentioned.

Prose needs some work. I made some edits, please review and revert if necessary. Placing on hold. Etrius ( Us) 04:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @SL93, oops, I see there was an edit conflict on this page. I see you added the references to Albert's swarm, Thanks for doing that :D
 * Etrius ( Us) 04:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I will withdraw this per "This whole first paragraph of Damage and the Results paragraph could use a bit more complex sentence structure. They flow very awkwardly". I don't know what you mean. SL93 (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I decided to attempt it with the first section. I don't know what do to do for the second section. SL93 (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @SL93 I am more than happy to clarify. Ultimately the choice to withdraw is yours but I would personally advise you to stick this one out. I realize in hindsight that my comment may have been vague, and I'm sorry about that (I tend to write these reviews at 11 pm-midnight). I went through and made the edits myself, since it was a bit of a difficult issue to explain. My concern was that the flow of the article itself was rough, a number of sentences felt like individual/separate facts being listed rather than a cohesive article. There needed to be more transition words and ideas needed to be connected a bit better. Style of writing is a relatively weak criteria anyway and I have no issue with helping you with this nom. This article isn't far off and I'd hate to fail it simply on these grounds.
 * I'll give a new set of suggestions later today since most of these don't apply anymore. I actually clean up most of the issues myself, and almost feel inclined to pass it but I'll do my due diligence and re-review one more time. I went digging through a few sources and added a sentence or two. Feel free to review these edits and revert if you disagree. Etrius  ( Us) 18:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Second pass
 * I still recommend swapping with this one.

I really don't see anything that I cannot clean-up or are isses within the scope for GA criteria. I understand that some of the issues above may just be writing style and that wouldn't be fair to hold this article back simply on those grounds. I apologize for the whiplash, and relative unorthodox nature of this review but I'll go ahead and pass the article. Congrats!!! Etrius ( Us) 00:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Prose is fine; article broadly meets standards of MOS.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Sources are reliable, and appropriate for this type of article; several were checked against the statements they supported with no issues found.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Article has broad coverage with appropriate level of details.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Yes
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Yes
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * All images have licenses making them available for use in this article, they are used appropriately, and have useful captions.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: