Talk:History of botany/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: found and fixed one dab.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well written, follows the MoS sufficiently.

   I made a number or minor copy-edits.[2]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Well referenced, references check out, assume good faith for off line sources

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   A good, but not over detailed summary with links to appropriate sub-articles

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):

   The text is awkwardly sandwiched between File:Mature flower diagram.svg and File:Angiosperm life cycle diagram.svg  Done

   Otherwise images licensed, tagged and captioned well

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, on hold for seven days. Just some image re-arrangement needed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for sorting that out. I am happy to pass this as a good article. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably behooves us to be careful about off-line sources. This area has been subject to boosterism by Jagged85 and others, and claims have been copied around Wikipedia. I fixed one problem with this article, but there may be more. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC).