Talk:Mantis/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bfpage (talk · contribs) 11:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Super-quick overview
I did a very quick check using a slightly useful tool called Peer reviewer. At first glance I do not see many problems at this point. Disambiguous links are fine.
 * Reference 50 is showing up an error. It probably has changed and become part of a subpage of the original url. Best Regards,
 * Replaced. Thank you for taking on this review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 11:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Copyvio-I am pretty sure this website copied the article.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 12:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * They certainly did. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Not required for GA status
In my articles, I like to create as many other links to my article by using this tool Since it is a fine article already, your mantis article would appear as a link in the articles on these other pages. Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 11:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Most of the articles that ought to have links seem to have them already; there are over 300! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is one sign of a good article, methinks.   Bfpage &#124;leave a message 20:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.


 * This sentence has a lot of clauses and may be hard to follow: "Their lifespan is normally about a year and in cooler climates, the adults die in winter, the autumn-laid eggs, protected by their capsule of hardened foam, hatching in the spring." Maybe deconstruct it into another sentence.
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * wl 'forelegs'; forelegs vs forearms?
 * Done.
 * I love the word trope and plan to start using it more frequently myself, but I believe that trope might be better. and a more accessible term to younger readers.
 * Done.
 * I know this is explained in the body of the article, but perhaps a hatnote "Mantid" can be included. I only say this because that is the term that I would originally put in the search box if I were looking for information on Mantis.
 * Added a footnote.
 * Are there redirects to this article? For example, I have seen the spelling 'Preying mantis' used elsewhere.
 * "Preying" is a recent misapprehension; it has been "praying" for centuries. Someone has already created a redirect, however.
 * wl systematics?
 * Done.
 * I'm not going to list any more suggested wikilinks because I don't believe that NOT having some should interfere with this GA review. If it okay with you, I will just go into the article afterwards and add some myself.
 * Of course.


 * 1) It is factually accurate.


 * The article states that the mantis can see up to 20 meters. I tried to verify this but the closest reference after this statement is a from book with no access available to me. I'm guessing you are British and of course stating this fact in meters is perfectly fine, but really? 20 meters?
 * I've cut the doubtful claim, leaving the fact they hunt by sight (and added a ref on that). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.


 * 1) It is stable.
 * I am not sure that I have ever seen such a stable article.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.


 * 1) Overall:
 * 1) Overall:



Congratulations on another fine article. You are quite the editor and I impressed at how you work with other editors on maintaining, creating, and improving articles. Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 11:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review and the kind words. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)