Talk:Crop diversity/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 07:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I am reviewing this article for possible GA classification. Shearonink (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2017 (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:

   Wow. This is really REALLY well-written. Nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

   Well, thank you! Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

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

   Agroecology is wikilinked as a "further"-article, wikilinked as a term within the text, and also present in the 'See also' section. Per WP:MOS the extra linking needs to be removed from 'See also' and the extra linking at [[agroecology|agroecosystem]] also needs to also be removed. Shearonink (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

   Done.

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:

   The following references need adjusting:

   Ref #7/doi.org requites a subscription

   Added.

   I see that another WP editor found a freely-available source. Shearonink (talk) 06:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

   Ref #17/worldbank.org is dead

   Seems to be ok now, checked and updated citation. Maybe website was down briefly.

   http://usc-canada.org/what-we-do/sos/ gives a 404 Result

   Updated URL.

   Ref #31/http://www.nbagr.ernet.in/ gives a name or service not known

   Updated URL.

   Ref #34/F.B. Peirs is laid-out differently than the other references

   Formatted.

   C. It contains no original research:

   All the information is well-referenced. 02:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No copyvios found. Shearonink (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   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:

5. Is it stable?

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

   Stable, no edit-warring. Shearonink (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

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:

   All the permissions are good. Shearonink (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

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

   Good illustrations serve the text. Shearonink (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I will be giving this a few more readthroughs but everything looks pretty darn good at the moment. Shearonink (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

   Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

   @Chiswick Chap: I am still doing a few more proofreading-readthroughs but the only item mentioned above that is not adjusted yet is the agroecology-Wikilinking. Shearonink (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks, fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

   No further issues found, everything's good to go - congrats, it's a GA. Shearonink (talk) 06:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)