![]() | Ochetellus glaber was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 12, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | Ochetellus glaber was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 25, 2017). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) 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 ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: J Milburn ( talk · contribs) 23:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Happy to offer a review, but I may give it in dribs and drabs.
Josh Milburn (
talk)
23:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, off now. I warned it'd be stop-start! Please check my copyedits so far. Josh Milburn ( talk) 23:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
It does definitely stretch out the sentence with unnecessary wording. I shall commence fixes.
More:
Ok, I'm yet to look at the sources/images, but I'm concerned right now about some unclear passages (in some cases because they're highly technical) and the possibility of close paraphrasing of sources. I do feel that everything is there; it's just a matter of getting it in the right order. Josh Milburn ( talk) 22:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Please excuse my unusually long absence, just haven't had the time to contribute to Wikipedia lately. I'll be free tomorrow though. Burklemore1 ( talk) 05:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok; where are we with this? What do we think is the best path forward? Josh Milburn ( talk) 01:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: IJReid ( talk · contribs) 05:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Might as well take on this review, since this is the oldest species article nominated. From a quick glance the article looks good, although I do hate it when images cause section headers to shift, but I'm not sure if that's even a significant point to raise. Points will come soon. IJReid {{ T - C - D - R}} 05:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Skipping to taxonomy because I like doing the lead last, there are a few odd quirks I think merrit mention. IJReid {{ T - C - D - R}} 05:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Ochetellus glaber was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 12, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | Ochetellus glaber was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 25, 2017). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) 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 ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: J Milburn ( talk · contribs) 23:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Happy to offer a review, but I may give it in dribs and drabs.
Josh Milburn (
talk)
23:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, off now. I warned it'd be stop-start! Please check my copyedits so far. Josh Milburn ( talk) 23:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
It does definitely stretch out the sentence with unnecessary wording. I shall commence fixes.
More:
Ok, I'm yet to look at the sources/images, but I'm concerned right now about some unclear passages (in some cases because they're highly technical) and the possibility of close paraphrasing of sources. I do feel that everything is there; it's just a matter of getting it in the right order. Josh Milburn ( talk) 22:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Please excuse my unusually long absence, just haven't had the time to contribute to Wikipedia lately. I'll be free tomorrow though. Burklemore1 ( talk) 05:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok; where are we with this? What do we think is the best path forward? Josh Milburn ( talk) 01:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: IJReid ( talk · contribs) 05:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Might as well take on this review, since this is the oldest species article nominated. From a quick glance the article looks good, although I do hate it when images cause section headers to shift, but I'm not sure if that's even a significant point to raise. Points will come soon. IJReid {{ T - C - D - R}} 05:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Skipping to taxonomy because I like doing the lead last, there are a few odd quirks I think merrit mention. IJReid {{ T - C - D - R}} 05:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)