Novomessor ensifer has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 13, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Gug01 ( talk · contribs) 17:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Will begin shortly.
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. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
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. | ||
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). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
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. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. |
Note: If I do not mention a paragraph, then that means that it is perfectly fine and needs little or no improvement.
Pretty good so far, but I would like you to change scientific-derived names into common names (example: collembollans -> springtail arthropods). This applies for the whole article. Great detail! Gug01 ( talk) 17:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Pretty good but needs to be condensed. Gug01 ( talk) 17:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I have merged the small paragraphs with others. Is it ok now? I thought it'd be appropriate to just merge them rather than have small clunky paragraphs.
Done.
There are too few images. Is it possible to find another image of the ant? Gug01 ( talk) 18:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Novomessor ensifer has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 13, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Gug01 ( talk · contribs) 17:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Will begin shortly.
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. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
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. | ||
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). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
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. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. |
Note: If I do not mention a paragraph, then that means that it is perfectly fine and needs little or no improvement.
Pretty good so far, but I would like you to change scientific-derived names into common names (example: collembollans -> springtail arthropods). This applies for the whole article. Great detail! Gug01 ( talk) 17:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Pretty good but needs to be condensed. Gug01 ( talk) 17:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I have merged the small paragraphs with others. Is it ok now? I thought it'd be appropriate to just merge them rather than have small clunky paragraphs.
Done.
There are too few images. Is it possible to find another image of the ant? Gug01 ( talk) 18:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)