Talk:Upogebia hirtifrons: Difference between revisions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Upogebia hirtifrons/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: AxonsArachnida (talk · contribs) 04:41, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jonathanischoice (talk · contribs) 06:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AxonsArachnida: Hi, I’ve started a review here, just a few minor things. — Jon (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Jonathanischoice, thanks for reviewing this. I’ve addressed all the comments. AxonsArachnida (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.	See comments.  Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	OK
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	OK
	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).	OK
	2c. it contains no original research.	Covered by sources
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Plagiarism is unlikely; Copyvios report 1%
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See comments  Done
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	OK
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	OK
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring etc. found
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.	Images tagged OK
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image OK, fix caption  Done
	7. Overall assessment.

• Infobox image: caption ends with full-stop, see MOS:CAPTION
• Lead: where did the Ross expedition go? Suggest “the Ross expedition to Antarctica”
• Lead: “they use their legs to generate” either “a water current” or “water currents”
• Taxonomy: “but that exact location it was collected from is unclear” — “the” exact location?
• Description: “They can be distinguished from other Upogebia by the following characteristics.” seems a bit janky, how about e.g. “Several characteristics distinguish this from other Upogebia species.” Might also be good to start a separate paragraph with it so it’s all together.
• Description: “rounded at the front and” should be “… with”
• Distribution: Begins a new section with “They are endemic to New Zealand” — perhaps reintroduce, e.g. “U. hirtifrons is endemic to New Zealand. They occur…” maybe?
• Distribution: missing full stop at the end.
• Parasites: fix “The isopod lives lives“
• It might be notable that U. hirtifrons was the NIWA Critter of the Week, although we are left to guess which week since there’s no created or modified date anywhere in the URL, markup or metadata…
• add {{Authority control}} at the end, before the categories, for when those identifiers show up.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.