Talk:Mammalian kidney/GA2

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

Reviewer: BeingObjective (talk · contribs) 17:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Attempting a review of this article BeingObjective (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I find the prose style not to be engaging, unclear as to the target audience and inconsistent in word choice. While this article satisfactorily fulfills numerous criteria outlined in the GA checklist, it remains an encyclopedic piece focused on 'the Mammalian Kidney.' It is imperative not to overlook the undeniable maturity of the subject. Upon scrutinizing the prose within the citations supporting this article, a notable issue with the quality of writing becomes apparent.
 * 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 (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

I recommend refining the prose to enhance engagement, ensuring consistency in technical language, and tailoring the content to a specific primary audience. A thoughtful reconsideration of language use and target audience is warranted before resubmitting the article for further evaluation. BeingObjective (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Can you, please, give some concrete examples of what is wrong with the prose in the article? You can quote some pieces of the article and explain what you think is wrong with terminology or simplicity of the text. D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Although, please, explain what do you mean when you say that the article is not focused on the mammalian kidney. D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As for understandability, the topic is very complex and is not intended for general reader (with exception of the preamble), but still makes many things understandable, so it can be useful for a knowledgeable user (according to the Make technical articles understandable guideline). An "Introduction to..." article may be created, but whether it exists shouldn't affect the nomination of the current article. D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Review invalidated
This review is invalidated by the reviewer's request due to lack of time to compete the review: --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)