Talk:Human uses of living things/GA1

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

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


 * Thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2017 (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, 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):
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)