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

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 07:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig found very strong similarities to web pages https://chorlaghat.wordpress.com/2014/06/17/a-really-beautiful-centipede-think-its-my-first-centipede-shot-it-was-quite-big/, https://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Centipede, and https://www.atkinsinc.com/centipedes, but I think (judging from the visible dates, for instance) all three of these copied from us rather than vice versa. So that doesn't seem to be an actual problem.

• Indeed not.

The much bigger problem is that much of the article (maybe most of it) is unsourced or badly sourced. The following list some examples of this, but by no means all of it:

• Lead: "Centipedes always have an odd number of pairs of legs": contradicted by its source, which states "centipedes with even numbers of trunk segments (and hence leg-pairs) exist". Both the "Their size ranges" paragraph and the "Centipedes can be found in a wide variety of environments" paragraph are neither sourced nor a summary of later material. Overall, the lead gives some important information about centipedes but does not appear to be attempting to summarize the article.

• "Forcipules" section: this makes very general claims about all centipedes, sourced only to a web page about a single species.

• "Lifecycle" section: the first paragraph has two cleanup tags dated from July and November 2022. I cannot check the offline source of the second paragraph but the placement of the footnote suggests that it only verifies some very specific claims in the paragraph and that most of the paragraph is unsourced. The last two paragraphs are completely unsourced.

• "Diet" section: the only source for the second paragraph is for a specific type of centipede mentioned only in one sentence of this paragraph.

• Split the paragraph, the second half is correctly sourced, the first unsourced.

• "Predators & defence" section: second paragraph is entirely unsourced.

• "Habitat & behaviour" section: first paragraph is entirely unsourced. All but the first and last sentences of the second paragraph are unsourced. Third paragraph is entirely unsourced.

• "As pets" section: this is just a long list of species names, without any context (for instance, are different of these species popular in different places or cultures?) and completely without sources.

• Was added in the night, and removed in the morning...

• "See also" section: this doesn't need sources, but it is completely haphazard, a short random selection of articles that are not really about centipedes but merely happen to have "centipede" in their title.

• Removed, though one might comment that See also sections are by definition haphazard, and always concern items tangential to the article, as matters directly related will be discussed and cited in the text.

• "References": reference 23 (Pskhun) appears unreliable.

• Removed.

This was only from a superficial check; given these sourcing issues, a full GA review would need to verify that every claim in every sentence is backed by a source.

Given these sourcing issues, I think this is very far from meeting WP:GACR #2, far enough to meet WP:GAFAIL #1. It also has two cleanup tags in the "Lifecycle" section that are valid and existed at the time of nomination (GAFAIL #2). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]