Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evolution of sex/archive1

Evolution of sex[edit]

Article tackles a difficult and complex subject in a complete and clear manner. Much work has been done since the last submission as featured article (2004). Notably, it now has a good, clear intro; links to related wikipedia articles; presents all sides of the subject; terms and concepts are wikified. I think it is of similar quality compared to what you find in highly respectable scientific journals. Seb951

Object. Quite interesting, but there is only one internal reference and it's an external jump. Current requirements are to use inline citations (ref/note or ref/ref system). Rlevse 15:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Needs more references, specifically, inline citations. Also contains a number of stubby sections, consisting of merely one (or two) very short paragraphs. Occasionally, this is due to their being an in-depth article linked, but even then, the summary of that article could probably be given a little more depth. Fieari 15:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: Reference criticism acknowledged. I'm working on it. seb951 17 feb 06
Object - sections need to be expanded, lead cleaned up (remove ennumeration), etc. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. As a contributor, I'm surprised this got nominated. It's clearly not ready yet. Removing enumeration would be good, incidentally. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 13:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. A scientific style is too sharp, also there is a lack of pics :) Brandmeister 16:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can I remove the nomination status then? As I realise now, it is clearly not up to standards yet. I was being too optimistic and wanted to see what people though of it. seb951

You should instead try the Wikipedia peer review. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 13:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]