Talk:Electric fish/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 13:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
This looks like an interesting article on a topic that I feel will be of interest to many readers. I will start a review very shortly. simongraham (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! I'll respond to any comments promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments
editThis is a stable and well-written article. 69.2% of authorship is by Chiswick Chap. It is currently ranked B class.
- The text is clear and concise.
- It is written in a summary style, consistent with relevant Manuals of Style
- The lead is of appropriate length and contains both a summary of the article and some interesting facts about the African sharptooth catfish and Bluntnose knifefish to encourage further reading.
- Citations seem to be thorough.
- References appear to be from reputable sources.
- Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 0.0% chance of copyright violation.
- The article is of appropriate length with 1,590 words of readable prose.
- Text seems to be neutral and shows a balanced global perspective.
- There is no evidence of edit wars.
- Images have appropriate licensing and CC tags.
- Spot checks confirm that the sampled journal articles listed support the article.
Recommendations
edit- Link African sharptooth catfish (Clarias gariepinus) in the lead.
- Done.
- Possibly link Hypopomidae for the bluntnose knifefish in the lead.
- Done.
- Possibly link electrolocation (although this is currently a redirect to part of the article on Electroreception and electrogenesis).
- Done, it's clearly helpful to the reader here.
- Link gymnotiformes at the first mention.
- Done.
@Chiswick Chap: Awesome work. Please ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@Simongraham:: all done! Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Chiswick Chap: Excellent work. I'll start the assessment now. simongraham (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Assessment
editThe six good article criteria:
- It is reasonable well written.
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
- it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- all inline citations are from reliable sources;
- it contains no original research;
- it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
- it stays ffocused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
- it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- It has a neutral point of view.
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- It is stable.
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
- images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
Congratulations. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.