Talk:Choristoneura fumiferana/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Before I spend time on this, are you still around on this one? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, yes, I'm still around! J.j.lee (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been very busy these few days and didn't have a chance to address your comments. I see that you have already addressed your critiques, and I apologize for the hassle! I moved the Microbiome section to Food Resources as you suggested. Thank you for taking the time to review! I'll pass along the comment to my professor for future reference. J.j.lee (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2018 (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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Shouldn't be introducing anything new in lead section - ideally move all refs out and make sure lead only summarizes what rest of article says. Very short sections - suggest merge Range and Habitat (as is usual). Rather a lot of chapters. Suggest put Life history, Parental care, and Mating into one 'Reproduction and life history' chapter, as subsections. And why not put Microbiome in with Food resources too.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Why say "Needles on " the white spruce? Otherwise fine.
	7. Overall assessment.	Like the rest of your class, article is well prepared. Maybe tell your lecturer the sections could be better grouped next year!