Talk:Neumania papillator/GA1

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

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 18:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I will address them today. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 15:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Are there any images that can be added to this article? In my experience, images always help the reader visualize certain key aspects. Is there a map of some of the geographical distribution of the species? Gug01 (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the article is mostly focused in both detail and size to reproduction, whereas there is very little information on everything else. There is certainly more on reproductive behavior than on all the other aspects of the species combined. Gug01 (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is to remove some of the redundant or excessive information on reproduction and drastically expand other areas of the articles: distribution, predation, etc. Gug01 (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for your review. I have not been able to find any pictures on the internet, though I could e-mail Prof. Proctor to see if a free image could be acquired. I have not been able to find any maps of the distribution of the species. The reason that the article is so biased towards reproductive behaviour is purely as this is all that is known (or at least published!) about the species. I have to the best of my knowledge used all the papers ever published on it in this article (see scholar search) - it is only 'notable' in science for its reproductive behaviour). Acather96 (click here to contact me) 16:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your response. Based on the criteria, I don't think the article will be able to be a good article - not because it is poorly written (I think it's a great and well-written article), but because it only addresses reproductive behavior. I will reread the article again, just to make sure. Gug01 (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Do the GA guidelines say anything about cases where no reliable sources exist for some desired aspects of topic coverage? Acather96 (click here to contact me) 07:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just found it. See Reviewing good articles, section 4.3: "If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria." Gug01 (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)