Talk:Genetic code/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   THe tone of the article is not encyclopaedic, it reads more like a text book. Consider a thorough copy-edit throughout.  Done

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Large parts of the article are unreferenced, I have placed citation needed tags. This leads me to de-list immediately

   References supplied check out. Assume good faith for references to which I do not have access.

   Links to journal sites which require subscriptions should contain "|format=Subscription required" in the template.  Not done

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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:

   The lack on referencing in large parts of the article is a serious concern. means that I will de-list now. I will place back on hold as User:Boghog2 has requested. Note also that the article needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopaedic tone, less like a text book. When sorted this can be brought back to WP:GAN. Major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC) On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   OK, I am happy for this to keep GA status. I still think that you should put subscription required in the templates for online journals where free access is not given. However this is not a specific GA criterion. Keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some specific examples of where you consider the artcle's tone to be unencyclopedic? At first glance I don't notice any clear infringements of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, like leading questions or systemic problem solutions as examples. Emw (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like User:Boghog2 has tidied the text. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My only edits were to add some citations. I agree with Emw. I don't see any major problems with the tone of this article. Boghog (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]