Talk:Venom/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 23:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I will review this article due to the ongoing GAN backlog. I will start the review tomorrow. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

General

• Two paragraphs are in the lede, although MOS:LEADLENGTH states that it should have at least three in this case. I would prefer the addition of another paragraph, if possible of course.
  • Extended.
• Rest of it is alright, the Dorland's Medical Dictionary source can stay since it describes the definition, which seems to be only stated in the first sentence.
  • Noted.
• Ion channel toxins is linked with a category that contains a list of those toxins. I'm not sure if this is standard practice, I would prefer to change it to [[Ion channel#Ion channel blockers]].
  • Done.
• Uncapitalize Black widow.
  • Done.
• "and centipedes, which use forcipules, modified legs, to deliver venom..." → and centipedes, which use forcipules and modified legs to deliver venom...
  • No, the forcipules are the modified legs, which is why there are commas around the gloss.
    • Oh okay!
• "...deliver venom into their targets." → Isn't it supposed to say delivers?
  • '[the] spines ... deliver' is correct, 3rd person plural.
• There seems to be no copyvio issues. The first link though is straight-up copy-pasted text from this page. Besides that, everything seems to be alright.
  • They copied from Wikipedia. The Tumgir.com page is from 2021; the Wikipedia text was substantially the same back in 2019.

Photos

• All are alright. A good amount is present for the size of this article.

Sources

• Hm, per WP:FORBESCON the Forbes source should be removed since Emily Mullin worked as a contributor. According to her website, she is a freelance science journalist and her work has been published in "The Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, National Geographic, The Atlantic, Smithsonian Magazine, WIRED, and Fortune, among other outlets.", I'm not sure but I think that this source can stay since it says "unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert".
  • Agree, she's an experienced journalist.
• Rest of the sources are alright.

Promoting to GA. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)