Talk:Buffy-tufted marmoset

Buffy-tufted marmoset was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 28, 2023, 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.

image correct?

The image does not appear to be of a Buffy tufted marmoset - this should be checked —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.66.17 (talk • contribs).

GA Review

Unsuccessful. 20 upper (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Buffy-tufted marmoset/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 20 upper (talk · contribs) 20:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This article is a mess, will follow-up as to why. 20 upper (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

stub-tag at the bottom of the page
failed verification tag
Bare urls
~~Unsourced statements~~
No Taxonomy section
I feel like there's not enough information, you probably should have done more research before nominating
Why didn't you use the IUCN citation in the prose? particularly the conservation section where it was most imperative.
The prose in Conservation isn't particularly the best

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 28, 2023, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: ✗ Fail

2. Verifiable?: ✗ Fail

3. Broad in coverage?: ✗ Fail

4. Neutral point of view?:

Pass

5. Stable?:

Pass

6. Images?: ✗ Fail

I had to quick fail this, because it was not at all how a good article ought to look like. Kindly reflect on your errors and return when you're ready.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— 20 upper (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.