Talk:Plexippoides regius/GA1

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

Nominator:

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 01:43, 21 March 2024 (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 (inline 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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Source checked Maddison 2015, Proszynski 1984/2016/2017, no issues.
 * - This looks like it's cited to Scarborough 1992, but that source doesn't say this. Correct cite needs to be added. Also, it's unclear what you mean by "derived"? It's derived from the word 'plexippus right, no the genus specifically?
 * I have reworded this so hopefully it is clearer.
 * - MOS:FOREIGN plexippus needs to be italicized.
 * Done.
 * - I don't speak Russian and have no access to the source, but how was the species discovered here prior to it being described? Is there info in the source explaining why the specimen was retroactively assigned to this species?
 * Unfortunately the source gives no more information on why. I have added what I can.
 * Ref Kwon & Lee 2014 isn't used in the article. Some information can be added about its population trend.
 * Good spot. Added.
 * Ref Lugonov & Koponen 2000 isn't used in the article and has some information on its range within Russia that should be added.
 * Added.

Hi, I've finished my review. A few items to address, let me know if you have any questions. grungaloo (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry for hopping in; I gave a few revisions to the Korean text in the article. I'm not sure of what a good literal translation of the Korean name is from a quick search (see my edit comments in history; I made a typo in earlier one, meant to write "두줄깡충거미") so I removed for now. I'll come back later today to try and figure out an adequate replacement. From a Korea-related standpoint, I think the article otherwise seems good. toobigtokale (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That is very helpful. I have added another source for the name that I think supports the changes that you made. simongraham (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a very prompt and well thought out review. I believe all the changes are done. simongraham (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks! Congrats on GA. grungaloo (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)