Talk:Megafauna
 | Megafauna was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 23, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Megafauna article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Inconsistency in Gallery Captions
[edit]The captions for Macrauchenia, Paraceratherium, Megalodon, Muskoxen and Great White Shark (Maybe also Archaeoindris and Giant Squid) all feature more information in their image captions than the rest of the species, which seems irrelevant to this article as well as to the gallery itself. Separately, there is also inconsistency with the use of "The" before animal names in the captions ("The Greater rhea" and "Bengal Tigers", for example), mostly in the extant category. I am unsure if this is correct or not, but it is jarring to read. T-jaguar-T (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Megafauna/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Wolverine XI (talk · contribs) 21:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: The Morrison Man (talk · contribs) 22:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I'll be taking a look at this article over the next few days. Comments should be ready soon. The Morrison Man (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I look forward to it. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 08:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Having looked over the article, I don't think I can go through with reviewing it. For a topic this broad, the coverage present is very narrow, almost solely focussing on extant and recently extinct mammalian megafauna (save for the section on flightless birds under the "Evolution of large body size" header). The same can be said for the section on mass extinctions, which only covers the ones in the pleistocene. The section on ecological strategy only covers R- or K-selection, and is also inadequate. All in all, the focus of the article is much too narrow and needs to be expanded significantly. The gallery is unnecessary and again focuses almost entirely on megafauna from the past two million years, ignoring hundreds before that.
- The source list, while extensive, is mostly focused in the "Megafaunal mass extinctions" section, with sourcing on a number of paragraphs there and in a large part of the rest of the article being very sparse in nature. Formatting on the sources is good, though. Looking through the articles edit history, it also seems like you haven't contributed a lot to the current text in the article, with most of your edits being removals of content rather than additions.
- The prose is mostly ok, though there are numerous smaller issues and some areas of the text lack clarity. The latter is especially evident in the "Evolution of large body size" section. I can provide examples if requested.
- There's no copyright violations, I doubt that original research is present (though I did not check for it), and the article is stable enough. However, due to the issues posed above, I do not feel like this article is anywhere near ready for GA review. I would suggest submitting this for peer review first and then coming back to GAN after that. The Morrison Man (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
