Talk:Group selection/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Starsandwhales (talk · contribs) 15:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. If there's anything that I need to comment on, it's at the end of the review. starsandwhales (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

I know it isn't necessary, but if you can, alt text on the images would be helpful.

Added.

The word "altruism" should be linked the first time it shows up in the article (after the lead), and not towards the end. Same with the word "evolution".

Linked, and removed links further down

There should be a link for "allele"

Added.

The caption on the image of the temple should be a bit more clear, since I didn't fully understand how the image was connected to the content of the article.

The text and caption explain how the interplay of genes and culture allow humanity to develop elaborate artefacts (like temples). I chose this image because it shows both lots of people (as statues) and a complex product of human culture.

This article is very engaging. I think it sticks to the scope and summarizes the concepts with their own articles very well.

Thank you very much!

There's no link or ISBN for "Animal Dispersion in Relation to Social Behaviour. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.". Is there a copy of this on Google Books?

I've added the OCLC, there weren't ISBNs in 1962, and there's no Google ebook either.

I'm a bit confused by the scienceblogs.com source. Is the author a notable person? If not, why is someone's blog being used to cite? Especially since that statement already has a second citation.

David Sloan Wilson is a very well-known biologist. Scienceblogs.com isn't a personal blog but a place where scientists can write about major issues in science.

Oh ok, thanks for clarifying.

There are some duplinks in the citations with the authors' names.

Removed some duplicate authorlinks.

Everything looks good! This was a really interesting article, and I learned quite a bit. starsandwhales (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]