Talk:Gene/GA4

2015 GA Review (July)
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 16:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to get to this, but I'm ready to do a second review now. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * In the first sentence of the lead, would it be OK to replace A gene is a locus (or region) of DNA with A gene is a segment of DNA? It would be simpler, and it's what the caption of the first image says.  However, if there's a big difference between the terms locus and segment then it can stay as it is.  Other than that though, I made a few minor changes but the prose is generally good.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Great job specifying the page numbers from Molecular Biology of the Cell! I added a couple of refs to the section on Mendel.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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):
 * As before, the images are fantastic.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Thanks for all the work on this, and sorry again to keep you waiting so long for a review! Everything looks good to me though, so I'm closing this review as pass and promoting the article to GA.  --Cerebellum (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Thanks for all the work on this, and sorry again to keep you waiting so long for a review! Everything looks good to me though, so I'm closing this review as pass and promoting the article to GA.  --Cerebellum (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you to everyone who aided in getting this article up to GA level. It was definitely a job worth doing and hopefully sets a reasonable standard for the high-importance biology articles. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 00:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)