Talk:Phintella parva/GA2

GA Review

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

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 06:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 21:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Hi there! I noticed that comments raised in the previous GA review (GA1) have not been addressed (most of them language errors and simple typos). Please resolve those issues first. Then, please have a careful read looking for obvious spelling/grammar issues, missing spaces etc (I see several errors already at first glance, e.g. It was , one of over 500 species that she identified by over her career). When done, please ping me and I am happy to review this in-depth. Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]