Talk:Megalograptus/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 01:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Add a short description to the top of the article with the template {{short description}}.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Consider adding ALT to images (this is not a GA criteria but is good practice per MOS:ALT).

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• "The two most distinctive features of Megalograptus was its massive and spined forward-facing appendages, far larger than similar structures in other eurypterids, and its telson (final body segment), which was surrounded by unique "cercal blades", capable of grasping. " – should be "were" as the features are plural.

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Megalograptus are known from what was once near-shore marine " – consider rewording.

Reworded and made more concise. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• "unsually" – typo.

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• "The appendages of Megalograptus, about 3.5 times the length of the carapace were significantly larger than those of Mixopterus" – add comma after "carapace".

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Megalograptus was the structure formed by the telson and the immediate preceding segment (the pretelson)." – I believe should be the adverb "immediately".

Yes, fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• "On thecarapace, they were flat and disc-like and scattered without any obvious pattern" – Add space between "the carapace".

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: Excellent work. This article is now ready to review. simongraham (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

1. Comprehension: The comprehension is good.
Undetermined

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose is generally clear, concise and understandable.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The article is compliant with the manual of style.	Pass

2. Verifiability: The article is verifiable.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The article has a list of references and in-line citations for its contents in the body.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Sources used are reliable.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research found.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No flagrant copyright issues found with Earwig's Copyvio Detector.	Pass

3. Comprehensiveness: The article is comprehensive.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article broadly covers all major aspects.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article is focused without unnecessary deviations.	Pass

4. Neutrality: The article is neutral.
Pass

Notes	Result
The article is compliant with the policy on neutral point of view.	Pass

5. Stability: The article is stable.
Pass

Notes	Result
No ongoing content disputes or edit wars present.	Pass

6. Illustration: The article is well illustrated.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	No copyright issues found, images are appropriately tagged.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Use and caption are good.	Pass

7. Overall: Pass/fail.
Pass

Notes	Result
Congratulations, Ichthyovenator. The article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.	Pass

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.