Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 01:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	A couple of issues noted.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues found.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No inappropriate sourcing identified.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	In like sourcing appears appropriate.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None identified
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	All clear with Earwig's tool except for (duh) a mirror.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	About the only thing I noted as absent was any discussion of 'Grizzly' subspecies of brown bears.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Focus is appropriate.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No non-neutrality identified.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	I note the current content dispute between LittleJerry and Chiswick Chap, but do not see an edit war.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No issues found.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	If anything, we have too many images here. The depictions under Literature, Art, and Symbolism should each have some accompanying commentary in-text; some do not. Likewise, the fossil images in the Classification section, while relevant to the entries they pair with, have no commentary to help readers understand the significance of the fossils depicted. OK, we'll see what we can do here. I've documented and cited all the Lit/Art/Symbolism images; it seems right to cover a wide variety from different times and parts of the world, to show how important bears have been (and still are) in human culture. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] Fixed? LittleJerry (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	Passing per improvements, but it was in really good shape to begin with.

Many thanks for taking this on. Pinging co-noms Cwmhiraeth and LittleJerry. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. I'm sort of specializing in GA reviews of vital articles lately. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jclemens' Good Article Review expectations for Vital Articles.

• This is a vital article. As such, it requires an appropriate amount of scrutiny, because being wrong is just that much worse, so being right is just that much more important.
• This is a collaborative process. I offer suggestions, which editors are free to implement, ignore, reject, or propose counter-suggestions. If there's simply no meeting of the minds, there will be no GA pass from me, but please feel free to tell me to take a flying leap if I propose something stupid or counterproductive.
• I do not quick fail vital article GA reviews. In general, even if there is no clear path to meet all the GA criteria, working with conscientious editors is almost always going to improve the article and benefit our readers--just not to the extent all of us had hoped.
• This is not a quick process. Estimate a month, depending on my availability and the responsiveness of the nominator and other editors collaborating on the process.
• I am not a content expert. I generally have a reasonable background in the topic under consideration, often at the college undergraduate/survey level, or else I wouldn't have volunteered to review it. Thus, I depend on the content experts to help focus the article appropriately.
• The more the merrier. While many unimportant GA articles can be adequately reviewed by a single nominator and a single reviewer, Vital Article GA's can use more eyes, based on their increased importance. I always welcome other editors to jump in with suggestions and constructive criticisms.

Comments

• I noted a 'mya ago' construct while I was reviewing the images. I believe that construction is redundant, incorrect, and redundant. If I am wrong or mistaken, I will go to an ATM machine and withdraw $20 for the editor who demonstrates I'm wrong... ;-) Jclemens (talk) 06:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed. We certainly don't want tautologies repeating themselves all over again now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• OK, I had not meant for this to take so long. I will get you a detailed walkthrough within 48 hours, but a few things conspired to steal my free time... Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First Read Through 26 Feb

• "Members of the living lineages of bears diverged from Ursavus between 15 and 20 Mya ago," Found another one, and another one in the next paragraph. :-) Suggest the entire document be scrubbed for these--I won't mention further instances of 'mya ago'.

Scrubbed four.

• Caption on the Polar Bear/Sun Bear pictures is backwards--polar bear is on the reader's left.

Fixed.

• In the Predators, parasites and pathogens the generic 'he' construction for man(kind) seems a bit archaic.

Removed.

• "Public perception of bears is often positive, as people identify with bears due to their omnivorous diets, ability to stand on two legs, and symbolic importance,[100] and support for bear protection is widespread, at least in more affluent societies." I think the second and should have a semicolon or a period preceding it.

Split the sentence.

• "Smokey Bear has become a part of American culture since his introduction in 1944, with his message "Only you can prevent wildfires"" A bit pedantic here, but the original message, IIRC, was FOREST fires--wildfires is the more current term.

Fixed.

Overall, the text is in excellent shape! Parts do come across as a bit repetitive sometimes, but that's entirely fine when people are only rarely going to read the entire article from top to bottom. Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thorough and speedy responses as usual. There'll probably be things that need work before you take this to FA, but GA criteria are met. Jclemens (talk) 08:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]