Talk:New World vulture/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Danger (talk · contribs) 14:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The primary issue I see initially is the relatively short lead. The lead should summarize the whole article; right now a basic description and material on conservation and culture are missing.

The prose is choppy and many sentences should be combined. Example "The New World vultures comprise seven species in five genera. The genera are Coragyps, Cathartes, Gymnogyps, Sarcoramphus, and Vultur."

More later. Danger ^{High voltage!} 14:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Instead, they lay eggs on bare surfaces."; needs expanding. Does it nest on ledges on cliffs? Snowman (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've copy-edited the article for smoothness, so it's a little easier to read. Overall it seems quite a reasonable article in terms of coverage; my main feeling is that the lead should be extended slightly to reflect the article's contents, for instance of fossils. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Failed, almost entirely due to the short lead. Danger ^{High voltage!} 00:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]