Talk:Pelagic thresher/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. It is an interesting, well written article. My concerns are the following:

• "but can be distinguished by the white of its belly not extending over the bases of its pectoral fins." - I don't like this wording as it is clumsy but I could not think of a variant. Perhaps you can.

• Changed to "...by the dark, rather than white, color over the bases of its pectoral fins"

• I removed some wikilinks that went to disambig pages, eg. lifespan. Linking to a disambig page is rarely justified.

• OK

• I am a little concerned about all the fish terms (WP:JARGON). For the most part you have done a good job of explaining, but any more you can do would be great.

• Not sure what can be done; changed "labial furrows" to just "furrows", since that's what they are.

—Mattisse (Talk) 00:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• O.K. Just be conscious of that in your articles. Really, you do an excellent job. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Clearly written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Covers major aspects b (focused): Remains focused on article topic

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

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:

Congratulations. Another fine article.

—Mattisse (Talk) 01:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)