Talk:International Association for Plant Taxonomy/GA1

GA review

I've reverted my edits to the article to start from scratch with the review process

1. Introduction does not mention the existence of the publications which make up the bulk of the article (should summarise article), conversely it mentions the history and president which do not appear in the article at all
2. language is close to POV in places, eg "promotes an understanding" (aims to promote?) "exceptional use"
3. In terms of "well-written", having ISSN in text instead of footnotes can't be good. Similarly with the volume numbers. The style of subheadings followed by bolded intro does not read well either
4. This is a very short article for GA, not an obstacle in itself, but corners seem to have been cut several taxonomy-related databases available on-line. what? where? ref? The series includes many additional volumes of interest to specialists in specific subdisciplines eg?
5. referencing is quite inadequate. IAPT is given as a reference (despite not being independent of itself) and as an external link. There is only one reference which is genuinely independent of IAPT. The regnum section doesn't have a single in-line ref even to verify the existence of the publications (although some are wikilinked, Wikipedia is not a reliable reference).

As it stands, I do not think this article passes GA. However, in the spirit of Christmas, I'll give it a day or so before formal review for any comments or changes. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll be attending to as much of this today (or tomorrow) as I can. One comment: Although I tend to agree with you about point number 1 above, I've re-read WP:LEAD for additional advice, and note that it never actually says that it shouldn't contain information not in the text of the article. In any case, the bit about the president also appears in the infobox. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I know it doesn't say you have to expand lead points in the text, it's just that I would expect to see a somewhat broader coverage than just the publications, especially for an article as short as this, and a bit more on the organisation itself would assist. No rush, Jimfbleak (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Additional sentences added summarizing journal content of article.
2. Not sure this is POV or how to address it without making the prose less readable. Yes, the IAPT "promotes and understanding" (not aims to promote), just as Manchester United "plays football" (not aims to play). The "exceptional use" has been modified for clarity.
3. ... (currently working on)
4. Section has been added and statement clarified. The "additional volumes" is an extended "etc." at the end of the list. The preceding list consists of the examples.
5. I've re-examined the good article criteria, and I don't see your objections listed as GA criteria. The article, as it stands, meets all three statements given on the GA criteria for being factually accurate and reliable. I see no requirements about independence of citations. And I really don't understand your call to "verify the existence of the publications". A publication does not need an independent citation to show that it exists. The bibliographic information about the publication is a reference. The volumes are part of a series that is named in the article, with ISSN. The individual volume numbers in the series are given, along with year of publication. That information is a citation!

--EncycloPetey (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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: