Talk:Nature fakers controversy/GA1

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

Reviewer: Xtzou ( Talk ) 16:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(beginning review) Xtzou ( Talk ) 16:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a well writing article as well as extremely entertaining. To think that Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published in 1859 and the tenets widely accepted in his life time! You have done a good job of summarizing the Nature fakers controversy. (Today we would never ascribe all animal behavior to "instinct".) Excellent work!
 * Comments

I have done some minor  copy editing. Feel free to revert any errors.

 GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Congratulations! Xtzou ( Talk ) 17:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused: }
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!


 * Wonderful! Thank you so much for your review and your careful eye in fixing my silly typos, etc.  I especially appreciate your general interest in the subject matter; I admit "nature faking" isn't well known at all, but that you found the article "extremely entertaining" despite that fact gives me hope. :)  Thanks again! María ( habla  con migo ) 17:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Very interesting and well-written article. Salopian (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with the introduction. In "... argued as to the veracity of their examples ...", "as to" doesn't tell us whether they argued for or against. I infer from what seems most reasonable to me that they argued for. If so, then a simpler statement would be better: "defended the veracity...", for instance. For GA, this needs fixing. I hope someone knowledgeable will do it. Zaslav (talk)