Talk:Phengaris rebeli/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

With unsourced paragraphs and sentences all over the place, this article should never have been promoted in its current state. Also, the reviewer did not apparently check any sources for source-text integrity, plagiarism, close paraphrasing, or copyvio. There are other smaller issues to deal with, but the sourcing is most important for now. Sasata (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I assumed that if one had a source in one paragraph, it pertained to all the other information in the same paragraph. I see that is not the case and I will fix that in the next few days. NK2015 (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just fixed the the article for the sources. Please let me know if you have other issues. NK2015 (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is clearer now. As far as possible, it has been checked for plagiarism. Sentences have not been taken verbatim from sources, but have been rephrased by the author keeping the meaning intact. There are smaller issues remaining, but the article reads well.nimswrit (talk) 07:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC) A good supporting reference for the Habitat section would be KÉRY, M et al, Journal of Ecology 2001 89, 418 – 427 (reference 5 in your list).nimswrit (talk) 09:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment

This individual reassessment has been left open for over two-and-three-quarters years, and the person who initialized it, Sasata, retired over a month ago. I am closing it as no change; the article will be kept as listed. If someone else wants to initiate a reassessment, they are welcome to do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]