Talk:Pusztai affair/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 13:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC) I will be undertaking this review and welcome comments from other editors. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

My initial assessment is that the article covers the topic competently and is well referenced from reliable sources. However, the subject of the article is a difficult topic on which to write clearly. There is confusion about who did and said what, whether pressure was applied to whom, whether the potato lines were substantially equivalent, etc. This makes it important for the article to provide clarity and not introduce any extra confusion. There are a few instances where I think this has not been done. There are a number of dates mentioned without a year. In many cases the year is, I deduce, 1998 but paragraph 4 of the "Announcement" section definitely needs a year, and a month as well, following as it does the other years mentioned in the previous paragraph. The last sentence of paragraph 3 in this section also needs clarification.

The prose is generally good with good spelling and grammar but there are a lot of long sentences which have little or no punctuation in them. These would be easier to read with more punctuation, particularly commas.

One more point. The statement "the animals were pair-fed, meaning they were given the same amount of food" doesn't really explain what pair-fed means. I assume that, of each pair of rats, one had a control diet and the other one a GM test diet, and that these were equivalent to each other because they included the same amount of food. Perhaps that could be explained in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I will get to work on this within the next few days. AIRcorn (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I have had a go at addressing your above points.[1] I moved a paragraph so hopefully the chronology works a bit better and clarified a few sentences you mentioned above. Not a fan of too many commas, but I split and rearranged some of the longer sentences to hopefully make them read better. AIRcorn (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Good. One further point, "Red Desiree" potatoes appears several times in the article, sometimes capitalised and sometimes not. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted. Capitilised all of them. AIRcorn (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Well sourced as far as I can see.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	POV tag removed in November 2011.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Now stable after improvements made in late 2011.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	There are no images.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images not required for this topic.
	7. Overall assessment.