Talk:Evolution of sexual reproduction/GA1

GA Reassessment[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This review is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Examples such as "It seems" and "For the advantage due to creation of genetic variation, there are three possible reasons this might happen" are not exactly stunning or enlightening.

B. MoS compliance:
Section headings are too long.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
There are large gaps between citations. Whole paragraphs and even sections are lacking citations. This is not acceptable, even for a "good article". I am familiar with the citation requirements for scientific articles, however, this article presents a large quantity of information which should be cited.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
~~Article will be placed on hold until issues can be addressed. If an editor does not at least express an interest in addressing these issues within seven days, the article will be delisted.~~ --ErgoSum•talk•trib 22:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the lead, it needs to be condensed down to three or four paragraphs (currently stands at six). See WP:LEAD for guidelines. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been delisted after seven day hold. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 13:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]