Talk:California sheephead/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 21:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid that this article is not ready for GA status at this time. However, I can offer you a few pointers on what needs to be done before renomination.
- The lead section does not adequately summarise the contents of the article. The lead should summarise what the rest of the article says, and should not include any information not elsewhere. Because of this, it does not usually need any citations.
- The structure of the article needs some work. Information is currently organised in a rather hap-hazard way; the featured article on the silky shark may not be a bad model. I'd do something like this-
[Lead] -Description -Taxonomy -Ecology -Distribution and habitat -Ecology --Feeding --Predation --Breeding and life cycle --Migration and territoritality -Human interactions -Conservation status [References and external links]
- To add to the above point, while the writing's good, you need to try and keep information in the appropriate section where possible (this also cuts down on repetition). If you keep to the structure above, and try to keep (for instance) information on the distribution in the distribution section, the article would flow a lot better.
- The article needs a bit more on the taxonomic history of the species. Who first described it? When? Are there any synonyms?
- You need a more detailed physical description.
- You should do away with the gallery section. If the images belong in the article, use them in the article; if they don't, don't.
- ISBNs, DOIs and external links can help verify sourcing; for instance, it's not clear what kind of sources the "California Sea Grant College Program" citations are. Are they reports? Web pages? Journal articles? The Google Book link would be best cited as a book, rather than as a bare url. That said, the sources you do cite mostly look to be very good.
I've no doubt that once you've worked on the above issues, this will be ready for GA status, and I'd be happy to offer another review when you renominate. If you're looking for advice, you're welcome to contact me on my talk page, but I'm no fish expert; if you need one, you may want to contact Yzx (talk · contribs). Don't be disheartened- the research is good, it just needs to be arranged in a Wikipedia-friendly way. J Milburn (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Re: response to GA nomination
editThanks so much for your feedback! I'm in the process of making the proposed changes to the article, and I'm planning on submitting it for Good Article nomination soon. Ldorn1227 (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)