Talk:Menemerus minshullae

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Menemerus minshullae/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 19:04, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 16:12, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

Following up on my first GA Review, I have reviewed the prose changes. It looks good. The image comments are all addressed. I'm only going to bring up the spotcheck, as there were some requests for quotes:

• Copyvio tool found no issues.
• Reference check based on this version

• 4: Supported
• 9: Can you provide a quote for this offline source?
• 13a: Supported
• 20: Can you provide a quote for this offline source?

Once these are dealt with, this should be an easy pass.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Hi Simongraham, I replied to your email a couple days ago. Could you check your spam, in case it went there? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2026 (UTC)