Talk:Microorganism/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kostas20142 (talk · contribs) 15:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I will gladly take up and review this article. --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. Iztwoz take note! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article is well-written. Some issues have been fixed and now meets the criteria.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Fully compliant.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The relevant guidelines are followed.
	2b. 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).	All inline citations are from reliable sources (scientific publications etc.)
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research contained in the article.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyright violation/plagiarism problems have been resolved per the comments below. No such issues remain. The current finding of the automated tool with highest probability is false positive
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All main aspects of the topic are sufficiently covered
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Neutral article, no editorial bias or other related problems found.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is not affected by any ongoing edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are now appropriately tagged with their copyright status. No non-free content found.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images are relevant to the topic with suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article now meets the criteria for GA. Please feel free to request a peer review for more advice on how to improving the article further (why not to FA status).

comments

• File:Spallanzani.jpg requires attention. US pd tag is missing, and the other one is used incorrectly. Please refer to the file for more details.

Done.

• File:Robert_Koch.jpg requires the addition of the appropriate US public domain tag.

Done.

• Eagerwig's copyvio detector reported a suspected violation(see report). Unfortunately I tend to agree that there is a problem mostly with first and second link if the list (3rd is definitely not the case). Even a whole paragraph has been copied from 2nd. Could you check and comment on this??

The two sources seem very similar, so probably one copied from the other. Whether they copied us or vice versa I couldn't say, but I have completely rewritten the affected sections just in case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Microorganisms are used for many commercial and industrial production of chemicals, enzymes and other bioactive molecules" → "Microorganisms are used for the production of many commercial and industrial chemicals, enzymes and other bioactive molecules". I think this syntax would be better.

Fixed.

• Food production section mentions everything twice. Was that intentional?

Fixed.

• In soil section is a bit confusing,especially its last sentence. What do you mean that can occur?? Could you rephrase it?

Done.