Talk:Panama Creature
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Panama Creature article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Brown-throated Sloth ? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||
|
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Panama Creature/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article. I'll give it a read through now and add any points I see below. Miyagawa (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Lead: For some reason I don't think that "The odd appearance had been caused by underwater decomposition, and the sloth was buried." flows right. Can I suggest "The odd appearance had been caused by underwater decomposition. Once identified, the corpse was buried." ?
Actually, after reading the article through three times and trying to find further issues, I can't find fault with the rest of the article. Very nice job, placing it on hold so you can fix the line in the lead. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (
lists):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to
reliable sources):):c (OR
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of viewpolicy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
All looks good, happy to grade this one as a GA. Miyagawa (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Inappropriate word usage?
In the sentence "Melquiades Ramos . . . predicted that the body had been in the water for two days prior to discovery." (Necroscopy section), the word predicted seems inappropriate when talking of a past event not subject to subsequent confirmation. The contributor may have had predicated in mind, but as this is itself ambiguous and uncommon, a different substitution might be more appropriate. Speculated? Estimated? - the best choice may depend on the source material. {The poster formerly known as 87.81,230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)