Talk:Mini ature/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll get hopping on this (ooooh, bad but fun pun!) right away... -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:08, 30 January 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Taxonomy section:
 * "It is regarded as an invariable noun." ... I have no idea what this means - link or something to make it clear why it's here?
 * It means a noun that doesn't change in its plural, like sheep or deer; added a gloss.
 * link for "monophyletic"
 * Done.
 * Description section:
 * "After 14 years of preservation in 70% ethanol, " I presume that there is some concern that the preservation might have affected the coloring/description, otherwise, I'm not sure why this is included?
 * Yes, preservation tends to discolor specimens a bit.
 * General:
 * Is there only one specimen? It seems to be implied by the text of the article, but it's never explicitly stated.
 * Yep, the specimen based on which the species was described is the only one.
 * I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "After 14 years of preservation in 70% ethanol, " I presume that there is some concern that the preservation might have affected the coloring/description, otherwise, I'm not sure why this is included?
 * Yes, preservation tends to discolor specimens a bit.
 * General:
 * Is there only one specimen? It seems to be implied by the text of the article, but it's never explicitly stated.
 * Yep, the specimen based on which the species was described is the only one.
 * I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Passing now.