Talk:Preimplantation factor/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 21:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be able to get to this over the next week or so. @Oscar2129: I see you haven't edited since nominating this for GA. Are you still around? Sorry the review process has taken so long; we're a bit backlogged at the moment. Looking forward to reading this more closely! Ajpolino (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This was an assignment for a course that I took in the first half of 2019. At the end the instructor was happy with my article and thought that it wouldn't be a bad idea to submit for good article. As a pre-med student, I have been busy with my other work but would be happy to participate in the review process. Do you anticipate a lot of changes? Oscar2129 (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oscar2129: After a quick first skim I think the article would benefit from some de-jargoning and clarifying per Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Provide_context_for_the_reader. This is a technical topic, and so most readers will likely have at least some biology training. However, it'd be nice if at least the lead paragraphs (or the first few sentences) understandable to a complete lay audience. In particular, see the example given at WP:OBVIOUS. That's probably how lay readers would feel at the beginning of this article. I'm sorry I've been a bit slow, but I'll be able to read through it more closely soon and can give specific examples. Also you are welcome to participate as much as you are able. I can attempt to do some clean-up myself, but I have only a passing familiarity with this topic. That said, I think your work on this article has been excellent and I'm excited to see it so drastically improved. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
See what I said above. The article is written at a level where an undergraduate who has taken some developmental biology could understand it. If you could re-write parts of the lead so that it's understandable to a lay audience (i.e. in this case someone who has taken high school biology but may not have thought about it for some time) that would be a huge improvement. The sections can be a bit more jargony, but some clarification would go a long way. Ajpolino (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
See above.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:
In general, when writing articles on scientific topics we try to stick to secondary sources. Scientific articles (e.g. "The effect of PIF on frog eggs") are primary sources. In review articles, established scientists survey the primary literature and produce a secondary source. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, i.e. we prefer to survey established secondary literature to compile our articles. This goes hand-in-hand with the fact that editors here cannot rely on their academic credentials for credibility. So as an editor you're not saying "I'm an expert on pregnancy; I looked at scientific studies and here's my conclusion on PIF". Instead you're saying "I'm an anonymous editor of a semi-egalitarian mega-encyclopedia; as best I can tell here's what experts think when they look through studies about PIF"... All that to say, your article here reads like a review article. You cite primary literature for each of your points. Where possible, it would be ideal if you could find secondary sources (review articles, textbooks, et al.) to back up these claims. Ajpolino (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Unfortunately this article needs more work than I can put into it at this time, and the nominator appears to be absent (probably busy in real life). That said, kudos to the nominator for all the work that has gone into the article! If you (or anyone else) ever has the time to spruce this article up, it would be a pleasure to see it move to GA status (you can resubmit it for review anytime). Good luck with the pre-medicine program! Ajpolino (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]