Talk:Hypsibema missouriensis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J. Spencer (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

I think that this is worthy to be a GA. The only concern I have is the referencing (see below)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I note one redirect to a disambiguation page (Serration), but given the choices on that page, I think it can stay.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I have some concerns about linkrot, given how many of the sources are online newspaper articles. There's already a redirection of 7 ("Jetton throws party") to http://midwestdemocracyproject.org/blogs/entries/jetton-throws-party-for-fossil-but-could-it-offend-his-base/. Perhaps some of them could be consolidated. For example, citations 12 ("Bush strikes out") and 20 ("Dinochecker") are not used on their own, but with one or two other references; they could potentially be eliminated. Having said that, I don't foresee much trouble with controversy here (unless someone tries to bring back Parrosaurus), and this is mostly a point I'd like to bring up rather than a deep structural issue. b changed to aye, 01:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'd like some dialogue on 2b. Otherwise, everything else looks good, and I'd be happy to mark it for GA. The only other thing I can think of is that blasted Brimleyana article I mentioned on the talk page, which would mostly have the effect of perhaps adding a sentence or two in "Identification". changed to aye, 01:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'll take a look soon, I'm also hoping to find a user with access to Brimleyana via this or this. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Serrated" link changed to a wiktionary link instead; seems more appropriate. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• I'm adding archive URLs for all the potentially changing web links. Hopefully this will eliminate any linkrot issues in the future. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I made a few edits just now, mostly to consolidate references in a couple of places where it seemed like more were being deployed than necessary. Have a look and let me know what you think. Also, would you like me to wait until you can get ahold of the article? J. Spencer (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Your edits are fine; I usually go a little overboard with referencing sometimes, so it's good to have a second look. As for the journal article, I haven't gotten any responses yet so I'm leaning toward don't bother waiting because it could take a while. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case, and speaking from some experience that I'd expect the Baird/Horner article to provide at most additional confirmation of a couple of points, I am happy to promote. Congratulations! J. Spencer (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)