Talk:Protypotherium/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 14:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on my talk page, either's fine! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , specifically regarding the lead section, should the citations and links be moved to the body of the article? --Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 21:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:LEADCITE suggests that citations are not required in the lead, and my general preference is to leave out citations in the lead except for the most controversial claims. Since there are none here, it would be fine to de-reference the lead, provided that there are reliable sources for all of its information somewhere in the body. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ 6b. Also, for 2d, the information that I've included cited by the paywalled sources have not been copied from or reproduced in any way. Will do more when I get back home, and for now, I’ll tackle the easy stuff. --Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 22:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No rush required! I tend to be a slow reviewer in any case. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you reviewed the other criteria yet? --Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 23:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ganesha811 Also, I have ✅ your suggestion. --Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 02:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't, you'll see when I have! Usually takes me about a week depending on my familiarity with the subject, as it's hard for me to know whether an article is comprehensive enough / too detailed until I dig into it a bit. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Do I have to change some of the references into notes in accordance to the 2a criterion? --Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 02:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, there's no need to do that. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * For 3a, all of the information is in the taxonomy section and I’m afraid it’ll result in repetition, that is, if I just copied it. --Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 15:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * A little redundancy is better than a lead which doesn't adequately represent the article. See what you can do to change the phrasing, but if that's not possible or results in something too awkward, direct repetition is fine in small chunks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , will you have time in the next couple days to fully address the comments below, or would it be helpful if I put the review on hold for a week to give you time to make changes? —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

, I see you have made a few changes and improvements, but we're still a good ways off. How long do you think it will take you to fully address the comments below? —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * , as you haven't yet given me a timeline of when you'd be able to address these comments, and haven't edited the article for more than a week despite editing elsewhere, I am putting the review on hold for 2 days (until the 3rd). At that time if we're not making progress / have a timeline, I'll have to close the review without passing it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 06:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Closing due to nominator inaction. Unsuccessful., you are free to renominate the article, but unfortunately I will no longer be able to review it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)