# Talk:Gobioolithus

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gobioolithus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 15:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Starting review for my fellow wiki cup competitor.  MPJ-US  15:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ashorocetus: - First round of feedback, more to come.  MPJ-US  20:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


### GA Toolbox
I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.

Peer review tool
Nothing to address Y
Copyright violations Tool
No issues Y
Disambiguation links
Article links to "Volant" which is a dab page, but it also has an explanation so I think that's okay.
I changed the link to link to Flying and gliding animals since that's what "volant" means in this case. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 19:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
External links
No issues Y


### Well Written & Neutral
Gobi Desert is linked twice
Styloolithus is linked twice
Both fixed Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 19:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The lead jumps right into "G. minor" without actually stating what it is? If I look at the picture I can guess the context, but in a GA I should not have to guess.
Explanation added Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 19:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Something cannot "first be discovered" more than once in my exeperienced, I am confused as to how TWO different expeditions are credited with being first?
OK, I see your point. I rephrased the that sentence so it doesn't credit both as being first. I'm not sure which expedition discovered the eggs first since none of my sources say when the particular specimens were collected, and the time frames overlap. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 19:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
All measurements need to have the "non-breaking space" between the value and the measurement -  
Done
"Gobioolithus's" should be "Gobioolithus'"
Done, but as a side note, isn't either way acceptable under Wikipedia:Manuel of Style#Singular nouns? Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 19:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Is "locality" a term often used in palenotolgy? I have not seen it used much but then again I do not real a lot of paleontology articles ;-)
Yep, it's a very common term in paleontology. Basically, it's a more technical way to say "site". I can change them on the page if you think that's better, but I think "locality" is more correct. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 19:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
If that is a common term I have no issues with it being used.  MPJ-US  20:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


### Sources/verifiable
Looks like reliable sources across the board, formatting okay etc.


### Broad in coverage
A bit on the short side but appeares to be appropriate fot the topic Y


### Stable
Very short history, but no issues found Y


### Illustrated / Images
All check out Y
Review is complete, not a lot of issues. It is a heavy science article but I think it has the appropriate links etc. so that even I, a paleon-dumbskull, can read it and understand it. So I am putting it on hold for up to 7 days to allow for fixes to be made.  MPJ-US  22:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ashorocetus: -  Looking good, review complete and passed for GA