Talk:Oryzomys antillarum/GA1

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

Reviewer: Daniel Cavallari (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Text is clearly well written and fluid.
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * Intro size is adequate and summarizes the content. Everything else seems OK.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * Very well referenced. References are mostly verifiable.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Reliable references are provided wherever necessary.
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Article broadly covers important aspects of the species (morphology, taxonomy, ecology).
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * No copyright issues have been detected.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Image usage is very adequate. Images are provided when necessary, and are also very informative.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * No copyright issues have been detected.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Image usage is very adequate. Images are provided when necessary, and are also very informative.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!

Discussion
I will detail any existing issues below.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) The article is excellent overall, I have no serious complaints about prose, references, image captions etc. However, the first time someone is mentioned by name, I feel adding a couple of descriptors is valuable in understanding (usually nationality and occupation, eg. English naturalist, American zoologist, and so on). I already did add some descriptors, but I myself do not know many of those authors (or they are rather not wikilinked). Could this be arranged?--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This matter has come up in a few previous GAs and FAs of mine. I prefer not to mention such descriptors, since they really are irrelevant details—what matters is the science, not where the person who did the science comes from. Therefore, I have removed the ones you added.
 * Thanks for reviewing! Ucucha 16:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I understand your point of view, and it was only a minor suggestion. In fact, this is more of an issue in articles that are not science related. In any case, I believe the article is quite ready to go. You really should think about a peer review and later FA nomination soon. Congratulations!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)