Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Temnospondyli/1

Temnospondyli

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Temnospondyli/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: With some improvements made, I join the ranks of the weak keepers, and form a clear consensus to keep. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

A 2011 listing. There are no general references but a large amount of uncited material, failing GA criterion 2. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I see a few places with paragraphs ending without references, but I'm not sure what "no general references" means. I believe the GA nominator,, is inactive, but perhaps someone else from the paleo project can step in. FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * General references are when multiple paragraphs are cited to one citation. No general references means that there is none of those meaning the article is likely uncited. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * About general references: WP:GA? specifies that not all statements require inline citations. You're allowed to have a list of citations at the end of the article. De facto for WP:GAN, we do seem to demand inline citations for most statements. Femke (alt) (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Still not sure I understand the issue; is it that citations are bundled together at the end of paragraphs? That few citations are used more than once? Either way, I haven't encountered such styles to be a problem even at FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , no general references isn't a problem. There are just a few uncited passages (e.g. the paragraph ending "Embolomeres are now identified as reptiliomorphs distantly related to temnospondyls", or the " simplified taxonomy of temnospondyls showing currently recognized groups", and a couple of others). Should be easy to fix, if you can find suitable sources. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging, who recently (~one year ago) expanded the article massively and may have comments. Personally, I would hardly characterize the amount of uncited material as "large", and the overall article quality is actually somewhat above average for palaeontology GAs. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 22:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Then hopefully it's easy to fix, ; which other GAs did you have in mind ;) ?.  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To that, I'd suggest that WP:Some stuff exists for a reason... Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 02:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Some uncited passages are now cited. I think compliance with WP:V is compromised by WP:overcitation in places. Mostly in Temnospondyli. Some paragraphs are too long to comfortably read for non-academically schooled people (1a). Overall, I would ask for more work in this state for a pass in GAN, but would not want to delist either. Femke (alt) (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * weak keep the article looks good, though I would say it has too many citations, like [22][23][24][25][26][27] or [40][41][42][43][44][45], but it's not an obstacle for GA. Another problem is that class tree in Classification looks extremely ugly and unreadable on mobile, would suggest some change to it but I honestly don't know how to fix that. Artem.G (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)