Talk:Nuptial tubercles/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins (talk · contribs) 19:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: ForksForks (talk · contribs) 18:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello @ForksForks:, Thanks for your review, and your very useful guidelines. I have already started on the simpler tasks you outlined. It will take me about 7 days to review the lead section, so I hope you can bear with me that long.

I have removed the list of species, it was only there to tempt users in to hopefully add to the rest of the article

As for it being a short article, I believe that I have already expanded it as far as I can go. I have no formal scientific or academic education, so it is very good to hear that I have managed to get it "close" to GA status. Again, I had hoped that a flock of degree-wielding volunteer experts would expand it, but to no avail. Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

So the message you received from the bot unfortunately is boilerplate -- I want to be clear that I think this article would require a good bit of work to get to GA. As far as not feeling up to 'completing' the article, that unfortunately would run us afoul of the requirement that we address all main aspects of the topic in the GA criteria, regardless of if you feel like you could get there personally. So I would need to see improvement in that area to pass this article. ForksForks (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Marking as 2O needed, because while referencing has improved, I'm not sure if it's all the way there yet. In particularly, @Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins:, a sentence with no inline citation, followed by a sentence with a mid-sentence citation, does not serve to verify the previous sentence in my opinion, since mid-sentence citations are usually for verifying the first part of the sentence.

For the second reviewer, please review for if the length is appropriate, my hunch is that it is still too short, and the nom seems to agree with me. ForksForks (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your honest review and feedback, though I am still confused about referencing; should citations always go at the end of the paragraph as you recommend? Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

As an outside observer I concur with ForksForks on the current state of the article. There are some pretty significant statements that need to be referenced. Not to mention there were still maintenance templates that needed to be cleaned up (the categories, which I attempted to repair). It could be fixed by someone with expertise or access to scientific literature but there's some sense that it needs to be expanded too. Reconrabbit 18:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@ForksForks, @Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins. There's no citation for two sentences, nor is the 'pearl organs or nuptial efflorescence' claim cited in the body. Additionally, partially or fully keratinised cells versus keratin is a nitpick but terminology should be uniform throughout. The Image layout is rough to say the least and three images lack captions. The development of these structures is glossed over. Phrasing like 'definite proof', 'to an extreme', and 'research has proven' aren't sentences that fill me with confidence. You've identified plenty of additional problems that are salient and haven't been addressed. Regarding length, Electric organ (fish) is twice the size in terms of readable prose. There are edge cases when articles this short are acceptable (see Crassispira incrassata) but for the amount of sourcing I'm seeing, I would be shocked if there wasn't more out there. Frankly, this is a quickfail in my opinion.🏵️Etrius ( Us) 22:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I have some reservations about the quality of this article, but I'll not fail it right away. To summarize against the Wikipedia:Good article criteria:

1) The lead does not summarize content in the article, and instead has citations of its own that serve as an intro paragraph. I think given MOS:LEAD we want the lead to not have citations, and to summarize what is already there, not provide new info.

2) The article contains unsourced statements. Per the criteria we must have citations at the end of paragraphs.

3) Unclear what the source for "list of species" is, or if a source is not required, why one entry has an inline citation.

4) We shouldn't have a bare link in the further reading section.

5) The article is very brief -- compare to short fish anatomy GA Electric organ (fish). However I'm open to justifications for why it's short.

Please let me know if you feel like these aspects are fixable within a reasonable time period.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.