Talk:Onychopterella/GA1

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

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 23:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Criteria
 Good Article Status - Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ;
 * (c) ; and
 * (d).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review
 <li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>.</li> <li>:</li>

</ol>

Discussion

 * I have not been able to find color images with a proper license, so I can not do anything at this point. Super   Ψ   Dro  17:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Would dividing the history of research into two subsections work? Super   Ψ   Dro  17:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it should. How are you planning to divide it? Temporally? Gug01 (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Even so, I'm not sure all the details in the section are particularly necessary, although there might be certain conventions for extinct arthropods that I'm unaware of. Nevertheless, I'm impressed by the due diligence to find all the details in the first place. Gug01 (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Other than that the article is more than good enough to be a GA. Gug01 (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Butting in here, saying a section should be cut down because other sections are shorter is absolute nonsense. It has nothing to do with the GA criteria, and it makes sense the section is longer since it covers more than a century of research. FunkMonk (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from, User:FunkMonk, but my words have been misinterpreted. Keeping things in proportion, covering all the main subtopics to the article subject without going into unnecessary detail, is one of the criteria for GA articles. What I'm trying to get across is that I don't think that all the details in the section are relevant and that the size of the section makes the reader give outsized weight to the "History of Research" part of the article. Gug01 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I had something like "First discoveries" and "Description of subsequent species" in mind. I do not agree with removing details, I think everything is useful in some way. Super   Ψ   Dro  14:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the splitting up the section. As to cutting down certain details, I'll take another look at the sections to pinpoint where I think it's too much. It might not even be the details themselves so much as the wording. If I find that, reviewing the article, I'm wrong, then the article definitely should be GA. If not, we'll work together to fix it. Gug01 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok then, I added the subsections. I'll be waiting for your next reply. Super   Ψ   Dro  22:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Good job writing this article! While I was uneasy about the length of the first section, breaking it up has helped a lot. I want to congratulate you on your work to bring this obscure species to GA status. The organization and prose were clear and there was a good depth of detail. Gug01 (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! Super   Ψ   Dro  00:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)