Talk:Gorilla/GA1

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

Reviewer: Beloved  Freak  16:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

This needs many more citations. I've detailed a few specific problems that I see below.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Prose seems to be fairly good, although I haven't gone over it in detail due to other problems.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Citations needed throughout
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Not assessed
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * appears neutral
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Inevitably, a fair amount of recent vandalism
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Look ok.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Lead needs expanding, citations needed throughout.

Lead

 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should adequately summarise the whole of the rest of the article. It doesn't.
 * Is this article about a genus? That's what I gather from the infobox, but it isn't clear from the lead.

Citations/references
There are a couple of dead links marked in the references section

Physical characteristics

 * Citations are needed in this section

Group life

 * This section is completely unsourced

Intelligence
source: http://web.ebscohost.com.tproxy01.lib.utah.edu/ehost/detail?hid=108&sid=b25f892d-ad3e-4231-82ff-b6bd4db17a39%40sessionmgr113&vid=1&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=33893405
 * "Gorillas are closely related to humans and are considered highly intelligent." - needs citation & attribution

Economist; 8/16/2008, Vol. 388 Issue 8593, p78-79, 2p, 1

There are more sources I can provide if there is any trouble accessing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan616 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"can think about the past and future.[52] " This reference makes a totally unfounded assertion. The source cited is not scholarly, and although it does quote some organizations later in the article, the claim that gorillas can think about past and future is in no way supported. Sad, too, because I wanted to use this for school. It would be cool if there were some actual evidence that this is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.52.239.73 (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Interactions with humans

 * More citations needed

Cultural references

 * Unsourced

Broad?

 * I admit I'm not an expert here at all, but I am a little surprised that this article is so short, and uses so few sources, compared to, say, lion. Is it because there is more information in the species articles?

Pass/Fail
Unfortunately this article does not meet the GA criteria at this time. Would recommend a peer review if you're looking for more feedback before another nomination.-- Beloved Freak  16:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)