Talk:Sweet potato cultivation in Polynesia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: A. Parrot (talk · contribs) 22:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   I found some prose faults, most of which were minor enough and the intended meaning clear enough that I could correct them myself. (Check over my edits if you wish.) However, I think the sentence that begins "Genetic, cultural or linguistic links between Polynesian and Amerindian peoples…" needs some rearranging so that the list of candidates comes immediately after the phrase "Amerindian peoples" (so as to say "…Amerindian peoples, such as…"). This is a significant enough change that I was reluctant to carry it out myself.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   The section on cultivation and use goes into great detail about New Zealand but says nothing about other parts of Polynesia. I'm guessing that it's easier to find information on cultivation in New Zealand than elsewhere, but when New Zealand is the only society discussed in this section, that's a major gap.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   It looks like the current consensus does favor spread by contact between Polynesia and the Americas, but that may be partly because the genetic study was so recent. It might be advisable to point out, as the Science Media Centre does, that some scientists question the accuracy of that study's genetic sampling because of the age of the specimen.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

@Prosperosity: I'm close to passing the article, but I think it's worth pointing out, using the Science Media Centre source, that some authorities question the reliability of the DNA sample in the Muñoz-Rodríguez study. That would help explain to the reader why that study hasn't changed the overall consensus yet. A. Parrot (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: How about this version? I also added an additional newspaper source for clarity. --Prosperosity (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2021‎ (UTC)

Looks good. Pass. A. Parrot (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)