Talk:Alpheidae
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
 |
||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
 |
Alpheidae was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: March 29, 2007 |
[edit] GA review
Unfortunately, this article failed its good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 29, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
- Well written: For the most part the article is very well written. The prose works well most of the time and is certainly close to good article status.
- Factually accurate: The article does contain numerous references, unfortunately many statements are unreferenced and in my view the article requires further research given the breadth of the topic (an entire family of arthropods). In my view more references would be of significant benefit, I'd also recommend editors address the unreferenced claims.
- Broad in coverage: It is my view, given the breadth of the topic (a family of arthropods), that the article is too short and does not cover the topic. Are any species important from a human perspective (food, or the aquarium hobby). What do the species feed on? More information on the ecology of the family would be useful - How variable are the genera with respect to these ecological issues? Reproduction, size information etc. More family specific information - what do the genera have in common?
- NPOV: The article is written in a neutral fashion. Nice work.
- Stable: The article appears stable and not subject to editorial disputes.
- Images: Given the article is on the family Alpheidae it would, in my view, benefit from significant expansion with respect to images. What do genera other than Alpheus look like?
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. MidgleyDJ 11:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Video link
This is the link Id like to be used. The original Youtube video [1] . Recently the link was changed to an ad infested site which is clearly against the rules. An anon keeps reverting it back to the ad link Bl4h 13:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The reason I keep reverting it is to support independant websites. Youtube is not a public collective, it is a private corporation. If you get the same quality of content, if not better, is it truely neccessary to support a monopoly? Besides, the EducatedEarth video contains a link to more information, which is lacking on the youtube video.
- Fine, but youtube doesnt go around planting links. Besides, who knows how "giving" "EducatedEarth" is. Anon user,drive-by link change, it just didnt seem legit. Fine then Bl4h 21:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Why do people insist on it being a youtube link? I don't think brand loyalty should play this important of a role on an encyclopedia... I keep changing the link because the video on EE is accompanied by much more information than the youtube video. If you can get whoever posted the youtube video to add additional information it would make a little more sense to alter the link to youtube.
- This has nothing to do with brand loyalty. You are the one who brought that up. There are far too many ads on your educated earth video. It simply has a link back to this wiki article. Hardly "much more information". Ill try to find a better link than youtube. Bl4h
