Talk:Darwinius/GA1
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Ucucha in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ucucha 16:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Some comments to start with:
- Is the etymology of the name really important enough for the first paragraph of the lead?
- "The creature appeared superficially similar to a modern lemur"—vague. Did it look like an aye-aye, Hadropithecus, Babakotia, or gray mouse lemur?
- Do you need all those details about exactly where Messel is in the lead?
- The lead has very little about its actual distinctive characters. What characterizes the genus?
Ucucha 16:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if UtherSRG was planning to shepherd his noms through GAC or if he was just tossing them on the list with the hope that they'd be promoted. My time is limited, and at this point I don't plan on doing much with this article, though I will try to push this one through. (In other words, don't review this like a FAC nom—I'm not planning to take it there.) I will try to fix what I can this morning. Adding a description of its characteristics will be a much more lengthy process since the Franzen article provides extensive detail. I'll hit the highlights when I get back from work tonight. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, it looks like UtherSRG has been doing some work. Anyway, a description section is needed, and I still plan to work on that. The lead also needs fixing up. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- That may be difficult, since this may well come to a point where the article passes the GA criteria, but where I'm not comfortable saying it is "good". At this moment, I have the following three main problems with the article:
- It says preciously little about Darwinius itself—the features of the animal. The "Description" section you're going to write will help there.
- The organization is not ideal. I would organize it (not necessarily in that order) into (i) description of the fossil itself, (ii) history of its discovery and publication, (iii) interpretations about its ecology and the way Ida died, and (iv) the relationships of Darwinius (and, by extension, adapiforms). At the moment (ii) is divided into three sections and makes up about half of the article—more than can be justified, I think.
- The sourcing is bad for a scientific article. Most of the references are to news media, which are hardly if at all reliable sources on scientific matters. It only cites one scientific article (Franzen et al., 2009), even though several others have been published (Google Scholar gives 47 hits for Darwinius, but several of those are lay summaries and popular comments), including this one in the Journal of Human Evolution and a more thorough phylogenetic study at doi:10.1038/nature08429.
- Some of those may go beyond the GA criteria, but I think they are the areas that need to be worked on before this can really cover Darwinius well. Ucucha 17:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Admittedly, I haven't looked thoroughly at the article, but I was under the same general impression. That's why was thinking it would take too much time and effort for me to clean it up for a FAC run. Anyway, per the GAC criteria and your comments, the article technically fails 2b (verifiability for a scientific article) and 3a (covers the main aspects of the topic). It may even have some problems with 1b (layout and style). Just like at FAC, articles should be judged according to the standards set for their type (i.e. scientific articles, etc.). You're the reviewer, and you are welcome to fail it. Personally, I was only hopping on to add some details, but if you're right (and I plan to read the article in a moment before adding the details), then it may be too far in the hole for me to justify saving its GAC nom at this time. If that's the case, I may withdraw and add this article to the bottom of my long to-do list. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've changed my mind. This article needs a lot of work, and I don't have time to mess with it. Maybe UtherSRG will be interested in cleaning it up. If it gets down to just needing a description section, someone let me know. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- GA failed. I might work on it myself some day. Ucucha 05:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've changed my mind. This article needs a lot of work, and I don't have time to mess with it. Maybe UtherSRG will be interested in cleaning it up. If it gets down to just needing a description section, someone let me know. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Admittedly, I haven't looked thoroughly at the article, but I was under the same general impression. That's why was thinking it would take too much time and effort for me to clean it up for a FAC run. Anyway, per the GAC criteria and your comments, the article technically fails 2b (verifiability for a scientific article) and 3a (covers the main aspects of the topic). It may even have some problems with 1b (layout and style). Just like at FAC, articles should be judged according to the standards set for their type (i.e. scientific articles, etc.). You're the reviewer, and you are welcome to fail it. Personally, I was only hopping on to add some details, but if you're right (and I plan to read the article in a moment before adding the details), then it may be too far in the hole for me to justify saving its GAC nom at this time. If that's the case, I may withdraw and add this article to the bottom of my long to-do list. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- That may be difficult, since this may well come to a point where the article passes the GA criteria, but where I'm not comfortable saying it is "good". At this moment, I have the following three main problems with the article:
- Actually, it looks like UtherSRG has been doing some work. Anyway, a description section is needed, and I still plan to work on that. The lead also needs fixing up. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)