Talk:Carabus japonicus/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: NHanselman (talk · contribs) 02:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: RecycledPixels (talk · contribs) 23:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am RecycledPixels. I will review this article over the next few days. I usually take the review in several steps, and not normally in order. Please don't respond or edit this GA review page until I've completed item #7, the "overall assessment" field at the end, which is my sign that I have completed my steps, the ball is in your court, and I will wait for you to respond. That way we won't be disrupting each other with edit conflicts during this process. I will also ping you to let you know I have finished my part. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Without looking too deeply into the article, it is clear that the prose, while grammatically accurate, is far too technical for a general audience. Take a look at the WP:TECHNICAL article for guidance on the level of writing the article should be targeting. There are plenty of examples I could cite, but plucking a few out at random, from just one paragraph: "When in sympatry with the beetle C. dehaanii, C. japonicus is markedly smaller than when it is in allopatry." and "The body length male and female offspring were correlated with the mid-parental length (the sum of the male body length and female body length, divided by two)." and "The regression coefficient for the relationship between these two variables was 0.84 for males and 0.76 for females." and "Additionally, larger females were shown to lay larger eggs without an impact on fecundity."
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	*MOS:LEAD The lead section should summarize the article and not include information that does not appear in the body of the article. It should be written in a clear, accessible style. Sizing is appropriate for the length of the article. Citations appearing in the lead section are neither required nor prohibited, but generally the material is cited where it appears in the article body.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	A source check has not been performed on this article.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	A source check has not been performed on this article.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	This article has not been evaluated for copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Before reading the article, I compiled a mental list of major topics I felt that an article about an organism should have. What do they look like, including descriptions at different stages of their life cycle; what do they eat; what eats them; where do they live (both the geographic distribution as well as the type of habitiat); what is their life cycle, including lifespan; Conservation and ecology information, are they stable, invasive, threatened, endangered, extinct, etc.; interactions with humans, if any, such as being a pest species. The article does not include any descriptive information aside some mentions of body size differences, but doesn't actually state their body size. There is no information about predators. There is no conservation and ecology information, which could be as simple as a taxobox entry that describes conversation status. No information about interaction with humans, but as a forest dweller that is not unexpected or a problem here.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral, without editorial bias.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article was recently created from scratch, but there are no recent disputes or edit warring that would trigger a problem under this category.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	One image with appropriate CC licensing. Professional-quality photograph sourced as own work on Commons and uploaded by a contributor with only one day of activity and no EXIF data in the photo, but no copyright warnings on their talk page. I checked the uploader's other contributions and am unable to find anything that suggests anything other than that the uploader is a fantastic photographer. Nothing that suggests copyright infringement.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Photograph is of a non-specified Carabus beetle found in the Pakke Tiger Reserve in northeastern India. The article states Carabus japonicus is endemic to Japan.
	7. Overall assessment.	At this point in the review it is apparent that the article is not close to meeting the standards of the Good Article Criteria, so I have stopped the review and suggest that you continue working on the article, then review the WP:WIAGA article to get an idea of the standards that should be met at this level. At that point if you feel that the article has improved to those standards, feel free to re-nominate it at that time. Thank you for your contributions so far. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]