Talk:Yellowtail flounder/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RecycledPixels (talk · contribs) 07:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I will review this article over the next couple of days. I prefer to use the GA review table, which keeps me on task of evaluating just the GA criteria without getting lost in the weeds or bringing up MOS issues that aren't part of the criteria. The table is just a personal preference, although I realize that it can make threaded comments and responses difficult. Feel free to invent your own way of responding to my comments, whether it is in the table boxes in bold, italic, or colored text, or in a section immediately following the table. Generally, I also add a section after the table of other suggestions and comments that I have. Anything I mention outside the table in such a section is a suggestion only, and is not considered part of the pass/fail criteria of GA, so feel free to respond or disregard it if I make suggestions there. I will begin the first part of the reviews shortly. I usually take the review in several steps, and not normally in order. Please don't respond or edit this GA review page or the article itself until I've completed item #7, the "overall assessment" field at the end, which is my sign that I have completed my steps, the ball is in your court, and I will wait for you to respond. I will also ping you to let you know. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is clear and concise. Some of the grammar needs some copyediting, such as "Spawning in the spring and summer, the eggs (measuring approximately 0.9 mm (0.035 in) in diameter) float to the surface and drift for approximately two months" (the eggs don't spawn in the spring and summer, the fish do). Fixing that will fix the following sentence, which uses "their" to refer to the subject of the previous sentence, which should be the fish, not the eggs. Some of the prose can use some massaging, but not to the extent where readability is significantly impacted, so it is enough to pass this section of the GA criteria.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I'm not a huge fan of single-sentence paragraphs, such as those that appear in the "Ecology" section, but sometimes that's all the information you have. The article may be improved by combining some of those brief paragraphs, but the problem is not significant enough to fail the layout MOS guidelines. The lead section contains all of the most relevant information that a reader who is just trying to answer a "what is this?" question would need to know before going back to what they were doing, with easy-to-find sections in case more information was needed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Article uses appropriately-formatted citation templates with inline citations. In the cases that I checked where facts are presented without citations, I found the citation in the following sentence or two. Sometimes I find that adding commented-out citation links to the end of sentences helps when another editor comes along and adds additional facts to the article, which breaks up the fact from its citation, helps keep this all straight, but that's just a personal preference.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All sources are reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All facts appropriately referenced with inline citations, no apparent issues of original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig search and personal spot checking does not reveal any close paraphrasing, copyright violations, or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Main aspects of the topic are addressed; description, distribution, life cycle, diet, predators, ecology/conservation, and human interactions was what I expected to find in the article before reading it, and all of those are adequately addressed.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is focused without unnecessary detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral, including the fishing and conservation section, which is about the only section where I would expect to find any neutrality issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars or content disputes, no unresolved talk page issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are appropriately and believably tagged with appropriate copyright status, no fair use content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Relevant media, with appropriate captions where appropriate. No caption required for the image in the infobox.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall a well-written and informative article. Passing this one on the first look with no required corrections from the nominator, but take a look at the section below as well as the copyediting suggestions above.

Additional suggestions

Anything in this section is a suggestion for improvement and will not be considered part of the GA pass/fail criteria.

• The article is inconsistent with its units of measure, in some cases using U.S. units with conversions to metric, and in others using metric units with conversion to U.S. units. This is a MOS issue, but not one of the ones that are evaluated in the GA criteria.
• Some of the conversions offer false precision, such as "weighing up to 2.2 pounds (1.00 kg)" should probably be something like "weighing up to about 2 pounds (1 kg)" and in other cases approximations have been converted into much more precise measurements, such as "they dwell on sandy or muddy seafloors at a depth between 100 and 350 feet (30 and 107 m)" should probably be "between 100 and 350 feet (30 and 100 m)"

@Eviolite: That's all I came up with, nicely written article. Promoting. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@RecycledPixels: Thank you very much for the quick review, feedback, and promotion! I will work through the suggestions shortly. eviolite (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)