Talk:Brodoa oroarctica/GA1

Latest comment: 4 hours ago by Esculenta in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 15:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Just-a-can-of-beans (talk · contribs) 19:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I will take up this review. A cursory scan of the page looks promising. An initial comment I have is that the Conservation section could use some more internal links to other Wikipedia pages, but this certainly isn't something I would fail the nomination for. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will return to complete section 2b later, as it will be the most time-consuming by far. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for reviewing! I added 3 links to the Conservation section. Awaiting further suggestions for improvements. Esculenta (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
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. The language is very technical in some places, but not overly or inappropriately so. It is also unlikely that this page will be viewed by many people who would be unable to read at this level. Therefore, I feel it is "appropriately broad". Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. I feel there should be a sub-heading under the Taxonomy section where the page discusses the common names of the lichen, perhaps simply titling this subsection Common Names. This information may be the most pertinent to some people reading the page, and it would be handy if they could quickly navigate to it. That said, this is just my opinion, and the page certainly meets established Wikipedia guidelines for item 1b. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
  2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Reference list is present. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  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. Diverse sources and no sign of original research. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. No issues. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The page clearly covers relevant bases, and in fact exceeds expectations for this type of organism. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Everything seems within scope. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Excellent tone, though it might be hard to be biased on this subject. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No issues. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
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. Images are cited appropriately.
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. To be frank, I'm impressed that you managed to get multiple high-quality images, showcasing a diverse range of features of the organism. Excellent work. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  7. Overall assessment.