Talk:Dyspanopeus sayi/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 14:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC) I propose to undertake this review and will be starting in the next couple of days Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

First reading

At first inspection this article seems well written and well organised. A few points I noticed:

• "... but the tips of the claws are both black." - I would have thought that each claw had two tips so the use of the word "both" here seems anomalous.

•  Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• "where it lives from the intertidal zone fown to depths of 46 metres (151 ft)" - typo.

•  Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• It is inconsistent to say "Baie des Chaleurs in Canada", "Florida Keys", "Swansea Docks, South Wales (United Kingdom)" and "Venetian Lagoon".

•  Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• The second and third paragraphs of "Distribution" could be united as they are both about Europe.

•  Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• " with the number of eggs increasing according to a power law with carapace width" - Although the link to "power law" is explanatory, I think this information could be given in simpler English to match the straightforward style of other parts of the article.

• I have struggled to find a good way to gloss "power law" without going into far too much detail. I am open to suggestions, but I haven't been able to produce anything suitable. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• "At 29 °C (84 °F), the eggs can take only 9 or 10 days to develop, and this increases to 16 days at temperatures of 20 °C (68 °F)." - Maybe "but" would be better.

• I considered "but", but didn't see that there was any contradiction between the two clauses. I still think "and" is more appropriate. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• In general, the article has a number of sources but is quite short. One of the GA criteria is that an article should be broad in its scope. Is it possible to enlarge the "Description" section or provide more information on the crab's habitat or behaviour? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry I've been so slow on this – lots of other things have been consuming my time. I don't feel like I've done all that much to this article since the review started, although I think I've covered all your points. Do let me know if there's anything else you'd like improved. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• The article was pretty good to start with. I am satisfied with what you have done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Many thanks. Let me know if ever you'd like me to repay the favour. It was much appreciated. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

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 prose is of good quality
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	MOS guidelines mostly followed. The lead section could be expanded to better summarize the article contents. Mention of D. texanus in the lead is confusing. I am happy with the improvements made.
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.	References are well formatted.
	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).	Article is well referenced.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not that I can see.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article has been expanded along the lines of my previous comment.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	It stays focussed.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Not a problem.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article was created by nominator 10 months ago and has only received minor modifications since.
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 appropriately licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant and well-captioned. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	All criteria now met. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)