Talk:Mantis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bfpage (talk · contribs) 11:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Super-quick overview

I did a very quick check using a slightly useful tool called Peer reviewer. At first glance I do not see many problems at this point. Disambiguous links are fine.

Reference 50 is showing up an error. It probably has changed and become part of a subpage of the original url. Best Regards,

Replaced. Thank you for taking on this review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

  Bfpage |leave a message  11:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio-I am pretty sure this website copied the article.

  Bfpage |leave a message  12:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

They certainly did. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Not required for GA status

In my articles, I like to create as many other links to my article by using this tool Since it is a fine article already, your mantis article would appear as a link in the articles on these other pages. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  11:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Most of the articles that ought to have links seem to have them already; there are over 300! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That is one sign of a good article, methinks.   Bfpage |leave a message  20:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   This sentence has a lot of clauses and may be hard to follow: "Their lifespan is normally about a year and in cooler climates, the adults die in winter, the autumn-laid eggs, protected by their capsule of hardened foam, hatching in the spring." Maybe deconstruct it into another sentence.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

wl 'forelegs'; forelegs vs forearms?

Done.

I love the word trope and plan to start using it more frequently myself, but I believe that [[literary device|trope]] might be better. and a more accessible term to younger readers.

Done.

I know this is explained in the body of the article, but perhaps a hatnote "Mantid" can be included. I only say this because that is the term that I would originally put in the search box if I were looking for information on Mantis.

Added a footnote.

Are there redirects to this article? For example, I have seen the spelling 'Preying mantis' used elsewhere.

"Preying" is a recent misapprehension; it has been "praying" for centuries. Someone has already created a redirect, however.

wl systematics?

Done.

I'm not going to list any more suggested wikilinks because I don't believe that NOT having some should interfere with this GA review. If it okay with you, I will just go into the article afterwards and add some myself.

Of course.

1. It is factually accurate.

   The article states that the mantis can see up to 20 meters. I tried to verify this but the closest reference after this statement is a from book with no access available to me. I'm guessing you are British and of course stating this fact in meters is perfectly fine, but really? 20 meters?

I've cut the doubtful claim, leaving the fact they hunt by sight (and added a ref on that). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
3. It is stable.

   I am not sure that I have ever seen such a stable article.

4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

5. Overall:

Congratulations on another fine article. You are quite the editor and I impressed at how you work with other editors on maintaining, creating, and improving articles. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  11:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review and the kind words. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)