Talk:Cnidaria/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The last of the journal articles (Zrzavy) deadlinks.
   • The 7th external link (Wonders of the Seas) deadlinks.
   • Lead:

   • "corals may have been present shortly before 490 million years ago and diversified a little after 490 million years ago." Is it necessary to repeat the year twice? And, "diversified a little" is rather unencyclopedic. Perhaps "diversified somewhat"?
   • "On the other hand, some large jellyfish" - "on the other hand" is unencyclopedic and cliche-ish.

   • I agree that a "signpost" statement is necessary here to contrast the two facts. What I am concerned about, however, is that the usage of "on the other hand" may not be clear to people whose first language is something other than English, as they may not understand the metaphor. What if you were to replace it with something else, such as "Despite this" or "In spite of this" or "Nonetheless" or "Notwithstanding"?
     • "Despite this" or "In spite of this" or "Nonetheless" or "Notwithstanding" are not quite the same, they imply an obstacle overcome. "On the other hand" simply draws attention to another aspect with different implications, and AFAIK it's completely standard English. It's the standard dictionary translation of the ancient Greek ... μεν ... δε ..., and Larry Niven felt sufficiently confident about its intelligibility to riff on it by titling one of his SF novels On the Gripping Hand - which is Motie for "on the other hand". --Philcha (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

   • There are quite a few red links in this article. If there is a good chance that these topics will prove notable enough to have articles in the future, it is fine to leave them, but if there is not that chance, then please de-link them. Also, please check to make sure that there are not articles out there already that are just at a slightly different name - I fixed one red link that was caused by a missing "(".

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • References 1, 3 need publishers.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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:

   • I have completed the review of images, prose, and stability, and begun the review of the prose, getting up to the Cnidocytes section. It's getting late in my part of the world though, so I'm going to wrap things up for the night. I will be back in the morning to finish my review of the prose. If you wish to work on the minor issues outlined above in the intervening time, I have no problem with that, or if you want to wait until I'm completely finished with the review, that's fine too. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Resp to preliminary comments

• The interrelationships of metazoan parasites ... was there when I submitted the article on 16 Dec 08, but the link checker says it vanished on 17 Dec 08. I've replaced url with the archiveurl from the Way Back Machine, with archivedate=2007-10-25. --Philcha (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• The curse of 17 Dec strikes again! Wonders of the Seas was nothing special, so I've removed it. --Philcha (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• I've edited "corals may have been present shortly before 490 million years ago and diversified a little after 490 few million years agolater." I hadn't realised the previous phrasing was ambiguous! --Philcha (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Re "On the other hand, some large jellyfish are considered a delicacy ...", I've always been taught that such "signpost phrases" are helpful to readers - in this case highlighting the contrast between the fatalities and the yumminess. --Philcha (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've struck the comments in my review that I consider completed, and added a couple more comments. I'm finished with my review, so once the two prose issues are completed and the two publishers added to the references, the article should be good to go for GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've added publisher to the Taxonomicon refs, although I'd never heard of publisher being required for web refs.
• I fixed 1 red link that has an appropriate article under a similar name.
• camera eye should get either its own article or a major section of a larger article. WP's articles in visual systems are in poor shape but I've seen signs of gradual upgrading.
• The rest are significant cnidarian taxa. --Philcha (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Allright, everything looks good, so I'm going to pass this article to GA status. I'll give on the "on the other hand" phrasing - it's a minor detail and not really something worth arguing about :) Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)