# Talk:Velodona

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Velodona togata.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 4, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-02-04. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't find any source that refers to V. togata as the "angel octopus". As such, it's been removed from the article. If you find a reliable source, please add it back in (and cite it). Sven Manguard Wha? 06:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Velodona/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 17:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Sven Manguard Wha?
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 17:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 
b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

2: Verifiable with no original research

a. Has an appropriate reference section:  Yes
b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  excellent (Thorough check on Google & sources borrowed from the nominator. Cross-checked with other FAs. )

c. No original research:   Done

3: Broad in its coverage

4: Neutral

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc:  Yes
6: Images  Done (PD)

As per the above checklist, the issues identified are:

The lead and the layout needs to be fixed.

This article is a very promising GA nominee. I’m glad to see your work here. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 05:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for the review. I am not even going to try to respond to your comments inside of the collapse boxes; everything is too tightly packed in. I will respond below instead.
I have expanded the lead, and it should now include the main points from every section.
Regarding your concern about the use of "Indian Ocean", I don't see it as being an issue. The cited location for the species is "off the coast of South Africa, Mozambique, and Tanzania". These are all the southeast coast of Africa, and the body of water off the east of Africa is the Indian Ocean. It would be the same as saying "Off the coast of Boston, in the Atlantic Ocean" or "Off the coast of California, in the Pacific ocean". If you really have an issue with it, we can get rid of it, though.
MOS:PARAGRAPHS doesn't explicitly prohibit single sentence paragraphs, it says that that they should be minimized. The conservation section is, I feel, a place where it should be an accepted exception. Generally the conservation section would be longer; it would detail why the species has the assessment it has, any threats to the species that might put it at risk, and so on. In this case, the species has never been assessed for conservation status, and the scientific community simply doesn't know enough about it to have anything else to say on the matter. Single sentence paragraphs are something that I agree should be avoided, but in this case I don't see any better options. I suppose it could be merged into the bottom of the "Habitat and distribution" section, but it would still be a single sentance paragraph (just not a single sentence section).
I think that's all of your concerns. Please let me know your thoughts. Since we're in opposite time zones, you should feel free to make either of the changes in the second and third bullet points above yourself, if you feel it best to do so. I copy-edit the articles that I do GAN reviews for all the time, and rarely does anyone object. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!  You're right, I misjudged it. Apologies. The article looks perfect now.  --Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, everything looks good now. Passing the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)