Knowledge

Talk:Eastern mole/GA1

Source 📝

200:
I don't think this is being "Reviewed". Isn't the template supposed to be replaced if it is? If there are problems with the article, list them here so I can take care of them then put the article "On Hold". I think editors are typically given a week to make revisions and corrections. Thanks!
215:
Indeed, I've noticed that in some reviews; all that needs to be done is the article reviewed, it put on hold, and it should be done within a week or two, rather than arguing on one point for weeks then finally getting to the actual article. Anyway, here's the issues I found:
94:
2. The parenthetical references don't refer to items in the reference list. This prevents the reader from making meaningful use of the references, but it also makes a reader wonder if the text was lifted, parenthetical references and all, from some other work.
149:
The references issue has been significantly improved (see the revision history). Still, "can be found easily" isn't a criterion for Knowledge, and while parentheticals are OK, they're NOT OK if they don't refer to something in the
91:
1. There are far too many parenthetical references (stuff like: (Johnson, 1967)) amid the footnotes. These should be converted to footnotes. Which brings us to the second problem.
116:
The text doesn't seem to be copied or closely paraphrased from those sources which are online; many of the sources cited parenthetically can be found easily. —
66: 223:
Deleted. This was in the article when I took it on and I never found a source for it. It's not critical to understanding the subject.
62: 297: 274: 188: 165: 127:
There is nothing in the GA criteria—or in the Manual of Style as a whole—that says articles cannot use parenthetical referencing.
47: 106: 39: 246:", a land measurement. This is retained in the article but converted to acres. Both hectares and acres are displayed. 263:
These are the only issues I found; it's a solid article. I'll put it on hold and pass ti when the issues are fixed.
102: 251: 228: 206: 247: 224: 202: 117: 239:"0.74 ha" what does the ha abbreviation mean? might need a link so those not used to that know. 55: 17: 137: 128: 287: 264: 178: 155: 177:
Clearly not; I'll review this tonight then and pass/hold/fail it based on what I see.
32: 136:
And as a matter of fact, there is only one such reference in the entire article.
303: 280: 255: 232: 210: 194: 171: 140: 131: 122: 110: 243: 154:
Is this review still going, or does someone else need to jump in here?
74: 43: 286:Looks good now, so I'll pass the article as a GA. 98:Either way, this is not up to the level of a GA. 220:The citation needed tag needs to be addressed. 8: 7: 88:Two problems with the references: 24: 1: 141:17:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC) 132:17:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC) 123:17:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC) 111:21:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC) 304:16:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC) 281:04:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC) 256:07:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC) 233:07:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC) 211:17:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC) 195:17:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 172:15:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC) 320: 242:"ha" is the abbr. for " 103:Piledhigheranddeeper 299:Operation Big Bear 276:Operation Big Bear 190:Operation Big Bear 167:Operation Big Bear 18:Talk:Eastern mole 311: 300: 294: 277: 271: 191: 185: 168: 162: 79: 70: 51: 319: 318: 314: 313: 312: 310: 309: 308: 302: 298: 288: 279: 275: 265: 193: 189: 179: 170: 166: 156: 86: 60: 37: 31: 29: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 317: 315: 307: 306: 296: 273: 261: 260: 259: 258: 248:Susanne2009NYC 237: 236: 235: 225:Susanne2009NYC 203:Susanne2009NYC 198: 197: 187: 164: 152: 151: 146: 145: 144: 143: 125: 85: 82: 80: 28: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 316: 305: 301: 295: 293: 292: 285: 284: 283: 282: 278: 272: 270: 269: 257: 253: 249: 245: 241: 240: 238: 234: 230: 226: 222: 221: 219: 218: 217: 213: 212: 208: 204: 196: 192: 186: 184: 183: 176: 175: 174: 173: 169: 163: 161: 160: 148: 147: 142: 139: 135: 134: 133: 130: 126: 124: 121: 120: 115: 114: 113: 112: 108: 104: 101: 96: 92: 89: 83: 81: 78: 77: 73: 68: 64: 59: 58: 54: 49: 45: 41: 36: 35: 26: 19: 290: 289: 267: 266: 262: 214: 199: 181: 180: 158: 157: 153: 118: 99: 97: 93: 90: 87: 75: 71: 57:Article talk 56: 52: 33: 30: 44:visual edit 84:References 291:Wizardman 268:Wizardman 182:Wizardman 159:Wizardman 100:Reviewer: 27:GA Review 119:innotata 244:hectare 150:biblio. 67:history 48:history 34:Article 138:Ucucha 129:Ucucha 76:Watch 16:< 252:talk 229:talk 207:talk 107:talk 63:edit 40:edit 254:) 231:) 209:) 109:) 65:| 46:| 42:| 250:( 227:( 205:( 105:( 72:· 69:) 61:( 53:· 50:) 38:(

Index

Talk:Eastern mole
Article
edit
visual edit
history
Article talk
edit
history
Watch
Piledhigheranddeeper
talk
21:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
innotata
17:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Ucucha
17:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Ucucha
17:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Wizardman
Operation Big Bear
15:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Wizardman
Operation Big Bear
17:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Susanne2009NYC
talk
17:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Susanne2009NYC
talk
07:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.