Talk:Natural selection/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This review is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   There was a massive amount of overlinking, and I have attempted to fix this. However, links are not part of the GA criteria, so this is a non-issue. All GA-relevant MOS criteria have been met.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   There are large gaps between citations. Whole paragraphs and even sections are lacking citations. This is not acceptable, even for a "good article". And yes I am familiar with the citation requirements for scientific articles, however, this article presents a large quantity of information which should be cited.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Article will be placed on hold until issues can be addressed. If an editor does not express interest in addressing these issues within seven days, the article will be delisted. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 04:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As one of the main authors several years back, it is my opinion that this article does not meet the good article criteria anymore, because of weasel words, incorrect definitions, etc. And as I am not active anymore at wikipedia, I suggest delising the article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Article has been delisted after seven day hold. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 13:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)