Talk:Megalomys audreyae/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am failing the article per WP:GAC, due to the fact that the article contains unverifiable sources and is inadequately referenced. The article is also unillustrated. As these issues will require an indefinite period of time to resolve, and the article does not meet good article criteria, it currently will not be passed. Rcej (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- There are no other references--it's quite a poorly known animal. Illustrations are difficult to come by for the same reason. I would appreciate it if you had given me the chance to respond before quick-failing for reasons that may not be applicable to this article. Ucucha 03:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, google hits for megalomys audreyae are somewhat abundant; you can find many internet and secondary sources among them. Right now, the article is too undersourced to qualify for ga without a great deal of referencing. Once it is better sourced, the article can be renominated. Rcej (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I looked at the Google hits, and virtually none seem to provide additional useful information--they just list it in a list of extinct species, or mention it as another species of Megalomys. Google counts for mammals like this are usually somewhat inflated with all kinds of sites which list species (or in this case, specifically extinct species). There is a source that has something worthy to say (just published), but I don't see that as something that can't be sorted out during a GA review. Ucucha 12:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- What you can do is buff up the article with any/all additional new sources you can find, then renominate the article. It can still be passed in another GAR.-- Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- As I said, few of these sources have anything interesting to add, and therefore I don't think another GAR would be necessary. But let's stop arguing--I'll add what little there is and renominate it. Ucucha 12:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- What you can do is buff up the article with any/all additional new sources you can find, then renominate the article. It can still be passed in another GAR.-- Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- I looked at the Google hits, and virtually none seem to provide additional useful information--they just list it in a list of extinct species, or mention it as another species of Megalomys. Google counts for mammals like this are usually somewhat inflated with all kinds of sites which list species (or in this case, specifically extinct species). There is a source that has something worthy to say (just published), but I don't see that as something that can't be sorted out during a GA review. Ucucha 12:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, google hits for megalomys audreyae are somewhat abundant; you can find many internet and secondary sources among them. Right now, the article is too undersourced to qualify for ga without a great deal of referencing. Once it is better sourced, the article can be renominated. Rcej (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)