Talk:Doedicurus

Doedicurus 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: June 11, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Palaeontology Mid‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

South America Low‑importance

	Latin America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Doedicurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 22:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Criteria

1. Prose On hold

2. Verifiability On hold

3. Depth of Coverage ✓ Pass

4. Neutral ✓ Pass

5. Stable ✓ Pass

6. Illustrations ✓ Pass

7. Miscellaneous ✓ Pass

Comments

1.

Link carapace in the lead, as well as the first mention in the prose. It's not that common of a term, at least for readers without a robust biology background (currently linked at the second point in the prose)

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Link Smilodon at the first instance, rather than the second

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Camels is a duplink

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

2.

Note a should probably have a citation directly attached to it, as it's making a statement that an assumption is incorrect. Even if it's from the same source as where the information in the sentence the note accompanies comes from, it should have a citation to make it clear where the information is coming from.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Spot check on the refs should all checked instances supported by the reference and all linked refs tests working.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Image licensing looks good. Consider adding alt text, but that's not a GA requirement

7.

Placing on hold, just a little tightening up to do here. Good work. Hog Farm (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic