Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Bumblebee/1
The following discussion 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.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Kept. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 21:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
The article includes multiple uncited claims, contains disorganized paragraphs, and lacks integration of other valuable sources that could enhance its credibility and depth. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:19, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- What are the uncited claims? When multiple sentences are followed by a citation, that means the last citation supports the preceding sentences. FunkMonk (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Per FunkMonk, this seems to be a well-organised GA. It has exactly the expected sections; they are clear and readable; the illustrations are useful; and it is fully cited to reliable sources. No GA can cover every detail on a subject that occupies many books and papers, but this one does a good job and is well up to date with things like phylogeny. I have no idea what "lacks integration of other valuable sources that could enhance its credibility and depth" could mean, as comprehensiveness on a major article is both impossible and not in the GA criteria. I fixed a couple of uncited claims: this was really minor and I don't see why this has been rushed to GAR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: Anyway, it's now tidied up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- My apologies. However, shouldn't every sentence in a biology article be supported by citations? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- To answer your question even after this was archived, if an entire paragraph is followed by a citation that supports all of the preceding text, that is all that is required. Every single sentence doesn't need its own citation. FunkMonk (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)