Talk:Oarfish

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Oarfish/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 10:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Damien Linnane (talk · contribs) 05:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   I made some minor changes rather than bring certain issues up. If you revert any of them, that's fine, but please explain the reasoning in detail in the edit summary otherwise we'll have to discuss them here instead.

   OK.

   There's no consistency in referring to the latin names. Sometimes it's R. russellii, and other times it's Regalecus russelii. Is there any reason why this shouldn't be consistent?

   Fixed. The goal is to spell it out on first appearance in each section, and thereafter to abbreviate for the rest of that section.

   "yet rarely seen" - I'm not sure if i'm being too pedantic here, but should we clarify it is rarely seen by humans? I presume this is what you meant here. I'll leave this up to you.

   I think 'human observer' is the reasonable default here.

   The reader needs some clarification or Wikilink for what a 'pterygiophores' is.

   Edited.

   "As part of the SERPENT Project" - some clarification of what this project is would be appreciated.

   Removed the mention, the citation is sufficient attribution here.

   "oarfish are thought to batch spawn" - what is batch spawning? Is it just what is described in the following sentence?

   Reworked.

   "In addition to the otolith" - what is an otolith? And what is the relation of the otolith to the reproductive organs? This isn't clear. And might this entire paragraph be better placed in the below 'Reproduction' section?

   Reworked.

   Should 'Messenger from the Sea God's Palace' be in italics? I'm honestly not sure.

   Punctuated.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   On hold while waiting for minor issues to be addressed. There's no expectation of Quid pro quo for me reviewing your nomination, but I have a GAN in the same category if you happen to have the time to look at it. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

   Changes look good. Very happy to pass. Well done. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)