# Talk:Panama Creature

This review is transcluded from Talk:Panama Creature/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article. I'll give it a read through now and add any points I see below. Miyagawa (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead: For some reason I don't think that "The odd appearance had been caused by underwater decomposition, and the sloth was buried." flows right. Can I suggest "The odd appearance had been caused by underwater decomposition. Once identified, the corpse was buried." ?
I agree. To avoid short sentences, I've changed it to "The odd appearance had been caused by underwater decomposition, which had resulted in hair loss. Once identified, the corpse was buried." Does that work better? J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that works even better. Miyagawa (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, after reading the article through three times and trying to find further issues, I can't find fault with the rest of the article. Very nice job, placing it on hold so you can fix the line in the lead. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick review. J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

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, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

All looks good, happy to grade this one as a GA. Miyagawa (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your time. J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In the sentence "Melquiades Ramos . . . predicted that the body had been in the water for two days prior to discovery." (Necroscopy section), the word predicted seems inappropriate when talking of a past event not subject to subsequent confirmation. The contributor may have had predicated in mind, but as this is itself ambiguous and uncommon, a different substitution might be more appropriate. Speculated? Estimated? - the best choice may depend on the source material. {The poster formerly known as 87.81,230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The original quote is "From the state it is shown in the pictures, we can estimate it had been in the water for about two days before being found." I take your point and I will change it. J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)