(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
There is evidence of copying and pasting directly from other sources.
Pass Issues were as follows: Earwig's Copyvio Detector has shown a 70.5% chance that elements of the page have been copy-and-pasted from http://messiosmarios.com/biomimetics.html
I'm happy to say that MessiosMarios (2017) have certainly copied from Wikipedia, not the other way round, our text was already in place in 2016 or before. They've cribbed the lead section word for word, and taken a little from the On Growth and Form section also.
Agreed. I have changed this section to "Pass"
Broad in its coverage:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (major aspects)
The article gives information on his life, work, and legacy.
Pass Issues were as follows: Are there any other works he has done? What other evidence is there to support "Thompson's description of the mathematical beauty of nature stimulated thinkers as diverse as Julian Huxley, Conrad Hal Waddington, Alan Turing, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Eduardo Paolozzi, Le Corbusier, and Mies van der Rohe."? How did he impact these famous thinkers?
His other main works beyond the two famous ones are listed in Selected publications. The statement in the lead about the thinkers is cited and explained in more depth in the section on Interdisciplinary influence.
I agree there is more depth in that section, at the same time I am still left wondering what the influence was. (Maybe, I am nitpicking here and this is sufficient for a good article!)
Stated that it concerned the forms of animals and morphogenesis.
Accepted. Passed. 24.03.17
(b) (focused)
There are elements of the page that are focused (including information on two of his major works.)
Pass Issues were as follows: See above - particularly his legacy in impacting other thinkers. I would have to go and look elsewhere to understand this impact.
These legacy issues are described and cited as in (a) above ("Major aspects"). "Focus" generally refers to whether the article stays focussed on the topic at hand, not straying down rabbit-holes. I guess we're ok on that front.
Happy to accept your position here, so changed this to a Pass.
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Notes
Result
The article reads as a factual and NPOV encyclopedia article.
Pass
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Notes
Result
There is no evidence of an edit war in the page's edit history.
Pass
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)
All images are either in the public domain, or have fair use rationale.
The article possesses many of the features of a Good Article in that is well-referenced, with references provided, and a coverage of many aspects. Anyone with specialist knowledge might be able to advise on what more there is to add. In my judgement this Article merits being A-class.
After discussion with main editor of article I have agreed this is a Good Article.
@Davidkinnen:: Hi, I'm a bit surprised you've immediately filled in "fail" for a couple of sections: the normal procedure is for you to say what you think needs to be done, and for me to respond by updating the article or otherwise replying, especially as you already find the article to be "A-class". To avoid the bot automatically doing anything premature with this GAN, I've boldly reset these items to "?", hope that's ok. Could you let me know (here or above) what is wrong with the items that aren't complete, so I can fix them? Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap::: Apologies, this is the first time I have undertaken a Good Article review, and I made the choices that seemed relevant at the time. There is no denying that this article is incredibly well-written, well-researched, and well-referenced. I had understood the process to be me posting the initial review, and then seeing others make their responses. At which point I would modify my review to better match an understanding from other users and editors. I no way was meaning to denigrate the work you have put in here. Davidkinnen (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine (and what I guessed), and I didn't feel at all denigrated, just wondering if the system was about to go wrong. I'll attend to your comments shortly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Pass