Talk:Evolution of sexual reproduction/GA1
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
GA Reassessment
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This review is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- Examples such as "It seems" and "For the advantage due to creation of genetic variation, there are three possible reasons this might happen" are not exactly stunning or enlightening.
- B. MoS compliance:
- Section headings are too long.
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- There are large gaps between citations. Whole paragraphs and even sections are lacking citations. This is not acceptable, even for a "good article". I am familiar with the citation requirements for scientific articles, however, this article presents a large quantity of information which should be cited.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall: