GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: two found and fixed manually.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: three found and tagged.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)

CRITERIA 1 - It is reasonably well written.

Successful meaning that they are the most diverse, should I replace it with this? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 01:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 01:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Is this better? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 02:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 02:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done meaning they are the most northern found species, though I changed it to make it more clear. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 02:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this better? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 02:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 02:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 11:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word "sclerotized", has already appeared earlier in subsection "Head" where it has been linked and explained in the manner suggested by you, hence it is not required to do this for every subsequent occurrence of the word. May we consider this as done?AshLin (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Missed that, OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Changed from "primitive" to "basal" (more accurate) and reworded. AshLin (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 11:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added the word "the". Jezhotwells (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not good with grammar (as you can see I make a lot of mistakes) but I read through it and everything looks in order. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 11:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CRITERIA 2 - It is factually accurate and verifiable.

All check out, RS, no evidence of OR CRITERIA 3 - It is broad in its coverage.

Thorough with unnecessary detail

CRITERIA 4 - It follows the neutral point of view policy.


CRITERIA 5 - It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

Captioned and licensed.


Overall: