Talk:Schinderhannes bartelsi/GA1

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

I'll be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy
When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

Review
Due to the length of the article I will do an overall review rather than a section by section review. This article has significant problems outlined below:
 * Comprehensiveness is a primary concern. Is there no more information on this discovery?  Why was it named after the outlaw?  When and where was it found? Who discovered it?
 * ✅ - with as much info as is available
 * The Ecology section needs to be better referenced.
 * ✅ - there's only one reliable source detailing the organism but I've made it clearer that it supports all the statements
 * The photo has fair use rationale for its use in the article, Schinderhannes which is the biography of the outlaw. The rationale is also fairly minimal.  Please see Fair Use information for more rationale to include.
 * See WP:Jargon for some thoughts on jargon. You use a lot of terms such as "lagerstatte" (which you wikilink on the second mention rather than the first), "classified basally", and "paraphyletic" (which you go on to describe but your description uses "anomalocaridids" which is also foreign to all but a select few readers with a strong bent towards paleontology).  Consider expanding the article with explanations of some of these terms so that layman can understand.
 * ✅ - I think this is now more accessible; terms are explained earlier on.
 * The article is orphaned and more links to other articles will need to be generated.
 * ❌ Is this a GA criterion?
 * I will put this on hold but honestly I feel as though it should be reworked and renominated later. I don't feel it is ready for GA at this time.  I will wait a week to see what progress is done and then make my final determination.  H1nkles (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I will put this on hold but honestly I feel as though it should be reworked and renominated later. I don't feel it is ready for GA at this time.  I will wait a week to see what progress is done and then make my final determination.  H1nkles (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your review; I think I've addressed all of your points as best as is possible considering that there is only the single paper discussing the organism at the moment. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  14:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The missing links to other articles show that the discovery has not yet established any impact. As there is no secondary source for this and only the discoverer has written a paper about it, it is difficult to gether all necesary informations to have a good article. For 'me the sum of facts is to thin to get it a good article, but the criteria is more like that all availabe facts should be in the article and this is the case. If a second paper shows up the article will only cover half of the subject anymore and should go to GAR.--Stone (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A second paper is realistically only going to show up if new specimens are discovered, and by the time they've been found (if they ever are) and worked on it'll be years down the line. Secondary sources are unlikely to add any new data - where would it come from?  Again, because of the speed of the publication process, it'll take several months at least before any follow-up papers can conceivably take these results into account. I don't see what else could be added to the article, and it can't be held up on the basis that new articles which we have no basis for expecting will suddenly appear. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  23:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've seen a lot of work done. I've read the second opinion by Smith609 and taking this into account I will pass the article to GA.  Having reviewed several GA's a difficult balance is to determine whether there is enough information on a subject to make it a GA.  Unfortunately there is no set criterion on how long an article should be to qualify for GA.  As such I will pass this article.  Thank you for your work.  H1nkles (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)