Talk:History of botany/GA2

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Jezhotwells in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: found and fixed one dab.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Checking against GA criteria

edit
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    Well written, follows the MoS sufficiently.
    I made a number or minor copy-edits.[2]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    Well referenced, references check out, assume good faith for off line sources
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    A good, but not over detailed summary with links to appropriate sub-articles
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
    The text is awkwardly sandwiched between File:Mature flower diagram.svg and File:Angiosperm life cycle diagram.svg   Done
    Otherwise images licensed, tagged and captioned well
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    OK, on hold for seven days. Just some image re-arrangement needed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for sorting that out. I am happy to pass this as a good article. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Probably behooves us to be careful about off-line sources. This area has been subject to boosterism by Jagged85 and others, and claims have been copied around Wikipedia. I fixed one problem with this article, but there may be more. All the best: Rich Farmbrough21:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC).