Talk:Taxonomy (biology)/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: White Arabian Filly (talk · contribs) 21:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I think this is going to be an interesting review, but it may take a couple of days because of the article length. I'll keep it to a week or less like I'm support to though. GA criteria in bold as usual, my comments in plain text.
- Well-written. Yes, makes the topic clear and fairly easy to understand.
- Verifiable and reliably sourced. Yes, for the most part. Three references need help though; numbers 9 and 70 need to be completely filled out with access dates and titles, and 79 is tagged with not being good enough. It can probably be replaced with one of the others in the article, or for this kind of article, a ref should be easy to find on Google Books.
- Broad in coverage. Yes, covers all the main aspects of this topic.
- Neutral. Yes. (Though it's kind of hard to get worked up about taxonomy, unless you happen to be a biologist, I guess. Anyway, this isn't the kind of article where we really have to worry about a promotional tone--not that this article has it.)
- Stable, with no edit wars. No edit wars on the most recent page of the history.
- Images must be free or appropriately licensed. Yes. They're all free and appropriate to the topic.
- Free of copyright violations. Earwig reports close paraphrasing on the biocyclopedia site, so that part needs to be slightly rewritten in order to make it more original.
- Paraphrased to reduce the copyvio. Can you check?Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like you take care of it. The tool now says copyvio is unlikely. That part is now a pass. (I still have to check out the rest, though.) White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Done that too. :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I am satisfied with the article now. I think I can pass this. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your very nice review and allowing me to amend the article for a potential GA. :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I am satisfied with the article now. I think I can pass this. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Done that too. :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like you take care of it. The tool now says copyvio is unlikely. That part is now a pass. (I still have to check out the rest, though.) White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)