Talk:Reddyanus problematicus
Add topic | Reddyanus problematicus was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 3, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
GA Review
[edit]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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Reddyanus problematicus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this article is still far away from meeting any of the GA criteria, and I have to quick-fail this. There are just three sections, all (!) concerned with description (should be consolidated into a single "description" section), while other sections (distribution, habitat, etc.) are entirely missing. There are many grammar errors, there are unsourced paragraphs, etc.
It seems that the nominator did not do any content edits to this article prior nomination. The nominator could try to improve the article as best as they could first, then list at WP:Peer Review for comments (ping me then, and I am happy to provide additional help). But currently, the article is not in a state to allow for a GA review. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
@Jens Lallensack: It seems that the nominator did not do any content edits to this article prior nomination.- Although this is closed, I must say that I was the nominator and and was the biggest contributor the article has had. See diff. Thanks for taking the note, --ExclusiveEditor 🔔 Ping Me! 08:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am sorry for that mistake, I can't remember what confused me there. (Note that the article was failed because of other issues, as explained in the review). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)