Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. The rules for GA reviews are stated at
Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.
When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it
Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and
strike it out.
BTW I've occasionally had edit conflicts in review pages, and to reduce this risk I'd be grateful if you'd let me know when you're most active, so I can avoid these times.
Thanks for nominating this article. Most editors with an interest in biology nominate only species articles, because higher-level taxa need more research, and as a result WP's articles on higher-level taxa are mediocre. -- Philcha ( talk) 21:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm seeing some top-level gaps that jump at me:
(comment) I may also find gaps when I start walking through individual sections. -- Philcha ( talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I realise that filling these gaps will take a bit of research, and I won't rush you (yet). If you have difficulty finding or accessing sources, send me a message - I may be able to help. -- Philcha ( talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
My comments so far imply significant changes, so there's no point in doing a detailed walkthrough at present. Please leave a message here or at my Talk page if you think you've dealt with my comments so far, or if you have any questions or need any help. -- Philcha ( talk) 05:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
One of the GA criteria is "Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute". A comment above (21:08, 29 August 2009) suggests there may be a content dispute. I shall message the participants and then put tihs review "on hold" - if there is not significant progress in the next 7 days I will assess the artcile as a fail. -- Philcha ( talk) 05:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved) link checker
(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)
(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)
(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)
The editors have accepted that significant further work is need to bring this article to GA standard. I therefore concluded that for now the article has failed this GA review. However I look forward to seeing an improved version at WP:GAN. All the best, -- Philcha ( talk) 09:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- - - - - please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - -
If you want to start a new section of the Talk page while this review is still here, edit the whole page, i.e.use the "edit" link at the top of the page.
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. The rules for GA reviews are stated at
Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.
When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it
Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and
strike it out.
BTW I've occasionally had edit conflicts in review pages, and to reduce this risk I'd be grateful if you'd let me know when you're most active, so I can avoid these times.
Thanks for nominating this article. Most editors with an interest in biology nominate only species articles, because higher-level taxa need more research, and as a result WP's articles on higher-level taxa are mediocre. -- Philcha ( talk) 21:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm seeing some top-level gaps that jump at me:
(comment) I may also find gaps when I start walking through individual sections. -- Philcha ( talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I realise that filling these gaps will take a bit of research, and I won't rush you (yet). If you have difficulty finding or accessing sources, send me a message - I may be able to help. -- Philcha ( talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
My comments so far imply significant changes, so there's no point in doing a detailed walkthrough at present. Please leave a message here or at my Talk page if you think you've dealt with my comments so far, or if you have any questions or need any help. -- Philcha ( talk) 05:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
One of the GA criteria is "Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute". A comment above (21:08, 29 August 2009) suggests there may be a content dispute. I shall message the participants and then put tihs review "on hold" - if there is not significant progress in the next 7 days I will assess the artcile as a fail. -- Philcha ( talk) 05:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved) link checker
(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)
(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)
(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)
The editors have accepted that significant further work is need to bring this article to GA standard. I therefore concluded that for now the article has failed this GA review. However I look forward to seeing an improved version at WP:GAN. All the best, -- Philcha ( talk) 09:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- - - - - please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - -
If you want to start a new section of the Talk page while this review is still here, edit the whole page, i.e.use the "edit" link at the top of the page.