Talk:Eocarcharia/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

Nominators: Augustios Paleo (talk · contribs) 03:17, 20 July 2025 (UTC), SlvrHwk (talk · contribs) 18:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 14:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

This looks like an interesting nomination and likely to be near to meeting the Good Article criteria already. I will start a full review shortly. simongraham (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you! AFH (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@AFH It is an honor. I will ping your co-nominator too. simongraham (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• First, some general comments
• Overall, the standard of the article is high.
• It is of reasonable length, with 2,434 words of readable prose.
• The lead is appropriately long at 235 words.
• Authorship is 92.3% from the two nominators with contributions from 27 other editors.
• It is currently assessed as a B class article.
• There are some duplicate links, including abelisaurid, allosauroid, anterior, Ceratosuchops, Elrhaz Formation, metriacanthosaurid, posterior and Riparovenator.
• Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT text to the images for accessibility.

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • The writing is clear and appropriate.
   • Suggest it is worth adding an introduction to the section on classification.
   • The uncertainty on the fossils, whether they are one taxa or even related to the same individuals seems to recur throughout the article. Is it worth combining these into one here?
   • Is "uniquepostorbital" two words?
   • I have not seen the word "robusticity" before. Is robustness a more common synonym?
   • Suggest adding "the" to "part of skull that contains the brain".
   • I believe it is "where" rather than "were" in "were it is typically broad".
   • Suggest clarifying "lacks the ossification" at the end of the section on the skull,

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • The lead is good and clear and seems to the meet MOS:LEAD.
   • Much of the jargon is explained well, but there are other phrases it would be good to explain. For example, please clarify "were not found in association", "figured a newly-discovered skull roof" and "may even be referrable to".
   • Please revise "however" to ensure compliance with MOS:WTW.
   • It seems to comply with the other Manuals of Style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included, with sources listed.
   • Please check the DOI for Cau, 2024.

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • Sources seems to be mainly peer-reviewed journals.
   • Please confirm that the pages by Holtz, Sereno etc meet the requirements of WP:SPS.

   it contains no original research;

   • All relevant statements have inline citations.
   • Spot checks confirm 1, 5 and 14 are accurately represented.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 7.4% chance of copyright violation, which means it is unlikely. The top article for overlap is the one by Cau and Paterna sourced in the document and is basically common phrases and titles.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • The article covers the main aspects well, including the discovery and the controversies that surround the genus.

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

   • The article goes into a lot of detail but is generally compliant.

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The article offers a good balance, particularly in the section on the taxonomic classification uncertainty.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • Giganotos Db.jpg has an appropriate PD tag.
   • The other images have appropriate CC tags.

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • The images are appropriate.
   • Captions look clear and suitable.
   • Eocarcharia, improved.png is tagged that it shows "Inaccurate foot anatomy". Is this correct?

@Augustios Paleo:@SlvrHwk: Thank you for a very interesting and well-researched article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

That Eocarcharia, improved.png is not in use on the page due to its inaccuracies. It looks like all of the suggestions you gave have been implemented by me and SlvrHawk. I am confused by what you mean about the Cau doi however. AFH (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@Augustios Paleo:@SlvrHwk: Thank you all your excellent work. I see that the DOI issue, along with the remainder of the issues seems to the resolved. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 06:03, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

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.