GAN is meant to be a light, quick, one-person process. The criteria are few and simple. You can ask advice but the idea is that you make up your own mind. For me the key is that a GA is meant to cover "the main points", i.e. it need not be exhaustive. Anyway, feel free to discuss further. Chiswick Chap (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've done everything but the source review. I don't have access to the papers that are unlinked. I also don't have access to copyright tools. It seems that this would be a better task for collaboration, but I'll do what I can with the linked items. STEMinfo (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. For GAN you don't have to check everything, a few spot-checks are sufficient. For the papers, you can click on the DOI link to see at least the abstract, which will allow you to check that the paper is relevant to the claim made, and very often will directly verify it. For instance the DOI-accessed abstract of [17] Edgecombe & Giribet confirms 15..191 segments and "invariably odd number".
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
I went through and proofed the article. I fixed some grammatical errors, and linked to some technical terms.
are unassessed)
