Talk:D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Davidkinnen (talk · contribs) 15:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Timely, as it's his centenary! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) 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:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Clear, concise, and with good spelling, punctuation, and grammar.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Writing style complies with MoS and appears consistent.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Statements are backed up several references.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Sources appear reliable..	Pass
(c) (original research)	No evidence seen.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	There is evidence of copying and pasting directly from other sources.	Pass Issues were as follows: Earwig's Copyvio Detector has shown a 70.5% chance that elements of the page have been copy-and-pasted from http://messiosmarios.com/biomimetics.html I'm happy to say that MessiosMarios (2017) have certainly copied from Wikipedia, not the other way round, our text was already in place in 2016 or before. They've cribbed the lead section word for word, and taken a little from the On Growth and Form section also. Agreed. I have changed this section to "Pass"

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article gives information on his life, work, and legacy.	Pass Issues were as follows: Are there any other works he has done? What other evidence is there to support "Thompson's description of the mathematical beauty of nature stimulated thinkers as diverse as Julian Huxley, Conrad Hal Waddington, Alan Turing, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Eduardo Paolozzi, Le Corbusier, and Mies van der Rohe."? How did he impact these famous thinkers? His other main works beyond the two famous ones are listed in Selected publications. The statement in the lead about the thinkers is cited and explained in more depth in the section on Interdisciplinary influence. I agree there is more depth in that section, at the same time I am still left wondering what the influence was. (Maybe, I am nitpicking here and this is sufficient for a good article!) Stated that it concerned the forms of animals and morphogenesis. Accepted. Passed. 24.03.17
(b) (focused)	There are elements of the page that are focused (including information on two of his major works.)	Pass Issues were as follows: See above - particularly his legacy in impacting other thinkers. I would have to go and look elsewhere to understand this impact. These legacy issues are described and cited as in (a) above ("Major aspects"). "Focus" generally refers to whether the article stays focussed on the topic at hand, not straying down rabbit-holes. I guess we're ok on that front. Happy to accept your position here, so changed this to a Pass.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The article reads as a factual and NPOV encyclopedia article.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
There is no evidence of an edit war in the page's edit history.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All images are either in the public domain, or have fair use rationale.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	All images used have captions.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	The article possesses many of the features of a Good Article in that is well-referenced, with references provided, and a coverage of many aspects. Anyone with specialist knowledge might be able to advise on what more there is to add. In my judgement this Article merits being A-class. After discussion with main editor of article I have agreed this is a Good Article.

Discussion

@Davidkinnen:: Hi, I'm a bit surprised you've immediately filled in "fail" for a couple of sections: the normal procedure is for you to say what you think needs to be done, and for me to respond by updating the article or otherwise replying, especially as you already find the article to be "A-class". To avoid the bot automatically doing anything premature with this GAN, I've boldly reset these items to "?", hope that's ok. Could you let me know (here or above) what is wrong with the items that aren't complete, so I can fix them? Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap::: Apologies, this is the first time I have undertaken a Good Article review, and I made the choices that seemed relevant at the time. There is no denying that this article is incredibly well-written, well-researched, and well-referenced. I had understood the process to be me posting the initial review, and then seeing others make their responses. At which point I would modify my review to better match an understanding from other users and editors. I no way was meaning to denigrate the work you have put in here. Davidkinnen (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

That's fine (and what I guessed), and I didn't feel at all denigrated, just wondering if the system was about to go wrong. I'll attend to your comments shortly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Davidkinnen:: I replied to all your queries; did I miss something, or can we proceed? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap:: Apologies for the delay. Good Article agreed. Davidkinnen (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)