Talk:Papilio xuthus/GA1

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 15:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Nominator:

This article suffers from multiple problems.


 * The lead section is not adequate at all. Our guideline at Manual of Style/Lead section says "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article" and "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." This lead currently gives a lot of information that is not covered in the body of the article, and it does not summarize the most important facts in the article.


 * There are numerous grammatical and logical errors throughout. The very first sentence seems to refer to a place called "Hawaii Northern Myanmar", omits a space between "Japan" and an opening parenthesis, and mentions Hawaii twice. The second sentence (making up the entire second paragraph) has obvious grammatical flaws. The entire article needs a thorough copyedit.


 * When a single source is used to support a paragraph of text, all important information in that paragraph should be supported by the source. The "Description" section is supported only by Koch and Nijhout (2002), but that source does not mention some of the facts in that section, such as the insect's wingspan.


 * Information from sources needs to be reworded in your own words to avoid close paraphrasing, a subtle form of plagiarism. In the "Description" section, the source states "On the hind wing, regions of blue-iridescent and orange scales separate some of the black bands. The black pattern on the dorsal fore wing consists of tapering venous stripes..." Compare this to the text in the Wikipedia article: "Also on the hind wing are regions of blue-iridescent and orange scales separating some of the black bands. Black patterns also run as tapering venous stripes..." These are too close to be acceptable. I know that you,, did not write this particular section of text, but the article as a whole is not ready for GA status if these problems remain. I suspect there are other examples of close paraphrasing in the article.


 * Some important information is missing from the article. To give some examples, the "Description" section does not contain descriptive information about the caterpillar, the information on the insect's life cycle is rudimentary, there is little taxonomic information, etc. To see a fully fleshed-out article on a similar species, see Chrysiridia rhipheus.

This article does not merit GA status at this time. To fulfill our GA criteria, you will need to move all information from the lead into the article body, and then rewrite the lead from scratch. You would need to check all sources used to make sure the information in the article is fully supported without plagiarism. You would need to make sure all important information about the species is provided. And you would need to perform (or have someone else perform) a thorough copy-edit. If all this is done, feel free to renominate the article for GA status. – Quadell (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)