Talk:Yeast/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   I fixed some redirects and deadlinks - ref #62 [1] is not archived and is still dead.  Done

   ref #34 [2] is a wiki type source, not RS  Done

   • References replaced with reliable (and available) sources. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

   The wikilinks to condensate and viability link to disambiguation pages, this needs fixing.  Done, but there is now a disambig to Candida which needs fixing.  Done

   • Disambiguation links fixed. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
     • I unlinked, as condensate is destillation-specific terminology, and that link is already there. Narayanese (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
       • Um, am I missing something? I couldn't find another link to distillation condensation and the section (Distilled beverages) in Yeast that you removed the link from is discussing distillations and the resulting distillate - so....wouldn't a link to be appropriate? -- MarcoTolo (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
         • It's there at last word of 1st sentence, though I guess it could be linked a 2nd time. Narayanese (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
           • D'oh! Replace my above link to "distillation" with "condensation" (which is what was trimmed in the first place). -- MarcoTolo (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   In the History section the final sentence concerns US usage of yeast, but there is no mention of commercial use in other parts of the world. Surely yeast was marketed in other parts of the world previously?  Not done  Done

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Just a few concerns as listed above, on hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jezhotwells, this article is on my to-do list for FAC this year. I will address your concerns sometime this week to bring the article up to current GA standards. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That's good to hear - IMO the article should have a lot more information about yeasts other than bakers/brewers yeast. I'll try and add more to the ecology section if I have time. Smartse (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have pointed out what needs fixing above, I will take another look tomorrow and decide then. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the dab, and expanded the history section slightly to include the important non-US developments in commercial yeast manufacturing history. Let me me if there's anything else you'd like to see. Sasata (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, I am happy for this article to maintain GA status. Thanks for your work. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)