Talk:Mopsea
Add topicLatest comment: 1 year ago by Chaotic Enby in topic Review
 | Mopsea has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: May 11, 2025. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
GA review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Mopsea/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: ZKevinTheCat (talk · contribs) 14:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Starting the GA review — ZKevinTheCat
Review
[edit]Pretty good article. I don't really have any major problems with it. I really only have one question: "Mopseidae" and "Mopseadae" are both given as spellings. Is this intentional?
Spot check:
[26] - good
[18] - good
[8] - good
ZKevinTheCat (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't heard back from the nominator in a bit so I investigated this myself. The spelling is intentional, and I've left a clarifying note. With this disambiguated, I can now pass the article. Good work. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- @ZKevinTheCat My bad, I completely missed that! Yes, "Mopseadae" was an early 19th-century spelling, from the time when the nomenclature code wasn't as strict as it was today. Isididae was also originally called Isidae before being more correctly latinized. Sorry for the late reply! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)