Talk:Gene/GA4
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Evolution and evolvability in topic 2015 GA Review (July)
2015 GA Review (July) edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 16:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry it took me so long to get to this, but I'm ready to do a second review now. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- In the first sentence of the lead, would it be OK to replace A gene is a locus (or region) of DNA with A gene is a segment of DNA? It would be simpler, and it's what the caption of the first image says. However, if there's a big difference between the terms locus and segment then it can stay as it is. Other than that though, I made a few minor changes but the prose is generally good.
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Great job specifying the page numbers from Molecular Biology of the Cell! I added a couple of refs to the section on Mendel.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- As before, the images are fantastic.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Thanks for all the work on this, and sorry again to keep you waiting so long for a review! Everything looks good to me though, so I'm closing this review as pass and promoting the article to GA. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
Thanks edit
Thank you to everyone who aided in getting this article up to GA level. It was definitely a job worth doing and hopefully sets a reasonable standard for the high-importance biology articles. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)