Talk:Human uses of living things/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: HalfGig (talk · contribs) 13:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Other wiki articles can be used as refs? I thought that a no-no?? See refs 67-70.
    These are just cited to the book as usual, and wikilinked. Added author, date.
    Ref 66 needs a link, date, author, etc
    Done.
    Ref 71 should have page numbers
    Done.
    poss copyvio via earwig's tool: see this. The other site is tripod so I think it copied from wiki. I think there is a process/talk page tag to alleviate concerns but I don't know how to go about it. HalfGig talk 01:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tripod has clearly made use of Wikipedia quite a while back, leaving out the refs: indeed I believe it habitually does. I've never used Tripod and am not about to start. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know and agree. I said it (tripod) probably copied from wiki. I know there is some template you can put on the talk page to say wiki is not the violater but I don't recall what the template name is. Or do we not even need to worry about that? HalfGig talk 11:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, everyone can see they copied from us not the other way around. And the overall resemblance to the current text is pretty weak anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  5. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_uses_of_living_things/GA1&oldid=1141729316"