Talk:Emmanuël Sérusiaux/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Pomatostomus (talk · contribs) 07:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

#:Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I have a few questions regarding coverage:
 * Is there any information about his childhood or his inspirations? This isn't necessary if it doesn't exist, but could help the article.
 * I agree this would make the article better, but unfortunately I cannot find any information like this with the sources available. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC) ✅
 * Where did Sérusiaux obtain his master's degree before going to Harvard?
 * Added. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC) ✅
 * What position did Michel Foret hold when he served as Chief of Staff?
 * Added. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC) ✅
 * What did he achieve/do during his political career? Several titles are listed, but there doesn't seem to be much info on the issues Sérusiaux tackled, particularly compared to the research section.
 * Couldn't find any citable details about this. I did find some general info about some objectives that the Wallonia Government was pursuing during his time as Deputy Chief of Staff (such as a Federal Program for the Reduction of Pesticides), but these documents don't mention him by name and I think it would be too WP:OR-ish to include this. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC) ✅
 * Could you list at least the genera named after him in the recognition section?
 * The three genera named after him are the first ones listed in "Eponymy", which is a subsection of "Recognition". Esculenta (talk) ✅
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * 1) Overall:
 * 1) Overall:

Overall the article looks pretty good. I've listed some potential coverage issues I'd like you to look at above, and I need to check through the references, but otherwise it looks to be in pretty good shape. Nice article. Pomatostomus (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reviewing! I will get back in a few days after I dig around for some answers to your questions. Esculenta (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Pomatostomus, I've responded to your suggestions above. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi . I notice that has not responded to this review for over 4 weeks. In this time, they have made only 6 small edits, and a good article nominee that they suggested was failed due to lack of response. I'm not sure what to do about this. Only  can continue the review. I would suggest that if this continues for much longer that you report it at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. On another note, the article looks really good - thank you for the work that you have put into it! Bibeyjj (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Bibeyjj, just saw this comment – thanks. I will mention it at talk:GAN as you suggest. Esculenta (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Reviewer inactive for more than 3 weeks - closing this review as not promoted. Esculenta (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

--Whiteguru (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC) 

2nd Opinion Observations

 * Reference 1 is excellent.
 * Red links are admitted within reason. Reference 2 and 3 are fine.
 * Biography section with programs for biodiversity in its natural habitats is good clear writing.
 * In the Research section I am unsure if field trip needs a hyperlink; links are not needed to European Community (later the European Union) as these are common terms in the public domain.


 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Page created 6 March 2021
 * Page has 8 edits by 3 editors
 * 190 page views since creation
 * no edit warring observed, page is stable


 * 1) 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):
 * Emmanuël Sérusiaux 2014.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
 * Gyalideopsis buckii (4504890398).jpg = Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
 * Impatiens serusiauxii.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
 * Ikaeria serusiauxii.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.


 * 1) Overall:
 * If the small matters regarding links can be resolved, this article may proceed to GA status. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

, I have delinked some terms as per your suggestions. Thanks for sorting out my procedural error and taking on this second opinion. Esculenta (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your corrections. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)