# Talk:Megawhaitsia

This review is transcluded from Talk:Megawhaitsia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, Amirani1746 (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Lead:
For the non-specialists, can we have a date range for the Late Permian in "during the Late Permian in what"?
quick layperson explanatin of "maxilla"?
"which therefore remains uncertain" try to avoid "however" and "therefore" which usually signals some sort of OR - perhaps "Subsequent studies have challenged this proposition."
"could thus have invested " invested sounds like they were bankers putting money into mutual funds, perhaps "could thus have occupied"?
Discovery and naming:
"The holotype specimen of Megawhaitsia was discovered in the mid-1950s during excavations" we should not link to 1950s here, as it's not really relevant to the topic of the article.
"earlier in the Permian deposits of the Vladimir, Nizhny Novgorod and Kirov regions" perhaps we could say "earlier in the Permian deposits of the same Russian regions"?
Description:
"The maxillary bone is massive. The size of the largest preserved fragment is about 10 cm in length." These are very choppy - suggest "The animals' maxillary bone was massive with the largest preserved fragment measuring about 10 cm in length."
Please use the Template:Convert to convert dimensions to Imperial units.
"On the lower edge of the maxilla there is a large space to be able to place the lower canine." this ... is awkward and confusing as the "to be able to place" implies that there is someone doing the placing - this needs revision but I'm not familiar enough with the subject to make a suggestion
"The roots of the teeth are deep, all three having a common air sac." has a "clarification needed" tag which needs resolution
"A remarkable feature of the maxillary bone" "remarkable" is a bit POV, suggest rewording
"it might be necessary to revise the interpretation of the maxillary canals of Megawhaitsia." reads a bit ORish - suggest "the authors of the 2017 study suggest other explanations of the presence of these maxillary canals might be possible."
Classification:
"then from the Moschorhinidae family in 2001." I think you meant "then to the Moschorhinidae family in 2001."?
"In the article published by Ivakhnenko in 2008" suggest "In the article written by Ivakhnenko in 2008" as Ivakhnenko isn't the publisher
Sources:
What makes https://www.s2a3.org.za/bio/Biograph_final.php?serial=3111 a reliable source?
I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
Spot checks:
"However, since the venomousness of Euchambersia has been questioned in a study published in 2017, in particular on the basis of the comparison with various modern venomous animals, it might be necessary to revise the interpretation of the maxillary canals of Megawhaitsia." is sourced to this source supports the information
"A study published less than a year later by Adam Huttenlocker estimated that the families Euchambersiidae, Moschorhinidae and Annatherapsididae represented junior synonyms of Akidnognathidae, considered the sister-group of Whaitsiidae." is sourced to this source which supports the information
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello Ealdgyth, i'm starting to tackle the first flaws of the article that you have mentioned, but I would like to say some details: The s2a3 source is completing the affirmation mentioned by Ivakhnenko (2008). Amirani1746 (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
The problem is ... is it a WP:RS by wikipedia standards? I can't see who the author is or who publishes that site. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Ealdgyth Same to me, but i don't see the problem about it. Amirani1746 (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Per the linked guideline - our articles are based on "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". What makes this source fulfill those criteria? Ealdgyth (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Ealdgyth I have already seen the presence of this site at the origin of this source in other articles (ex : Egbert Cornelis Nicolaas van Hoepen), although I have nothing to confirm the vilidity of this type of criteria. By the way, I want to say that I added all the defects of the article, I let you revise it if it is valid for the GA. Amirani1746 (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the GA Ealdgyth, see you next time ! Amirani1746 (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)