Talk:Temnospondyli/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Yankeesrule3 (talk • contribs • count) 17:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This is my first Good Article review, so please offer me advice. I will do one level 2 section per day. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Only needs some minor fixes in tense, not enough by itself to fail article.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Lead

Seems to be a good summary of the article.

Description

Needs to stay consistently in the same tense, but other than that it is good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeesrule3 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the review. The lead describes what is currently known about temnospondyls in the present tense, what they were like when alive in the past tense, and how they have been viewed historically in the past tense. I don't see how I could keep the same tense when different times are being discussed. Smokeybjb (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I thought you were talking about the lead! Fixed the tenses. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

History of Study

Seems good, no obvious problems.

Evolutionary History

Again, seems good, no obvious problems.

Classification

Could use some cleanup, but not appalling by any means.

Paleobiology

Seems good. No problems, except for some minor tense errors, although not bad like the description section was.

I will take a day or two to finish, but I think that this will pass, unless I find something very appalling. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)