Talk:Metagenomics/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Allens (talk · contribs) 17:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• I am not taking a position on whether it's a good article or not (I do not regard myself as sufficiently experienced to do so); I will simply note the peer review I did at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Metagenomics/archive1 - I have carried out one of the recommendations (linking genomics) myself, and two of the questions can probably be left for later (regarding searches using HMMs and proportional abundance checking), but the rest do need examining. Allens (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for your suggestions and edits. As I understand it, the criteria (see WP:GA?) and process (WP:RGA) for selecting good articles are a bit more flexible than featured articles, and any editor can carry out the review. To address the previous peer review:

• I went through and tagged 3 of the 4 articles tagged as registration warnings by checklinks with the subscription required template. I also checked the redirects, and they are all open (although the national academies requires registration), and include a link to PLoS via the DOI resolver. I figured that was ok, but I can replace the url with a direct link if necessary.
• I've tried to bracket some sections (like bioinformatics) that were largely based upon one or two review articles with citations at the beginning and end of paragraphs as suggested. Again, I'm new here, so if its necessary to increase the citation density it'd be no undue burden to do so. If you could point to a passage or two so that I know what you mean, it'd be a help.
• I expanded the end of the biofuel section a bit to specifically mention the leafcutter ant fungus garden metagenome, with links out to the larger system and its mutualism.

I hope I didn't overlook any. I probably should have explicitly replied on the PR, sorry if that was poor form. Estevezj (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that I didn't spot these changes. Might I suggest not using the "minor edit" flag for such changes? Most people, including me, don't see "minor edit" revisions in their watchlists, so I didn't spot that any significant changes had taken place and didn't look (I should have, I admit). Upon looking over it now:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Quite readable; follows MoS as far as I can tell

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Well-referenced; plagiarism check vs most-referenced article indicates no problems (material duplicated is either references or very short phrases).

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Actually answers more than I had thought when I read over it for the peer review. Pyrosequencing's advantages and disadvantages in comparison to shotgun sequencing would be nice but not necessary if not findable in a secondary source.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems on NPOV notable.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   History indicates stability except for changes to get to GA status.

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):

   Images all check out, and generally have as much data as is suitable in captions (although I did add a link from the IMG/M mention to the appropriate article, for people who read the lead then image captions); further data is available upon clicking.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good job!

I believe it passes! Next thing to do is to figure out how to list it...

Umm... I may not have been supposed to list it, given that (as part of the peer review process and the above) I did do some editing. I am checking on this now. Allens (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, no problem; the criterion is "no substantial editing", which it wasn't. Allens (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Great news. Thanks for your thoughtful reviews and suggestions during both reviews!Estevezj (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)