Talk:Neoblast/GA1

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

Reviewer: Eewilson (talk · contribs) 09:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I have picked up Neoblast for GA review. It is going to need some work before it will be ready to be a GA, but hopefuly, working together, we can get it there. I will begin with a read and then hit on some issues with suggestions. Please respond to this comment so that I know you're available and ready to work on this article. Thanks! —Eewilson (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help on this. I have only helped develop one other GA so I am looking forward to the coaching and advice you can provide. I am pretty current on Neoblast so I can find more references etc. I am ready when you are.--Akrasia25 (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

First
Hi! Okay, I want to let you know two things. This is my second GA review article and I did not know what a neoblast is until I read the article for review. I think this is a good thing because one of the most difficult things about technical articles is making them readable to a wide audience. Let's begin there and with discussion of the LEAD and project conventions. At this point, do a bit of investigation of the following items and get back with me. I think that these 3 areas will need to be addressed first. Let me know if you have any questions.


 * WP:TECHNICAL:
 * One of the GA criteria is for it to be understandable to an appropriately broad audience. This is shortcutted WP:TECHNICAL (or WP:MTAU for "Make technical articles understandable"). Assume that the person reading the article knows nothing about neoblasts, planaria, and such.
 * "Put the least obscure parts of the article up front."
 * "Avoid overly technical language." In lead sections (see next bulletpoint), I tend to write most things in non-technical terms, getting more technical later in the article.
 * WP:LEAD:
 * Everything in the Lead (introduction) of an article should be covered in the article. If this is the case, then often citations are not needed in the lead (see MOS:LEADCITE).
 * "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents."
 * "The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read."
 * "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."
 * "...significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."
 * "The subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader.... Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it."
 * WikiProject Molecular Biology/Molecular and Cell Biology (shortcut MCB) conventions:
 * This article is within the scope of this project. It should follow the conventions of that project. For example, if the project consensus is to have certain information covered in articles on cells, you'll want to make sure you cover that information. There is a Talk page for that project where you can ask questions. You may want to ask about this there if you don't already know where to find information about how to format a cell article. Let them know which article and that you have nominated it for GA and it is currently in GA review.

—Eewilson (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Checking in on the status of this? Eewilson (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reworked the lead and asked on the project talk page. --Akrasia25 (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I see that. I have more comments.
 * The lead will need content
 * noun/verb number mismatches (e.g., "is or are") Neoblast? Neoblasts? Which is plural? For example.
 * punctuation
 * "This mitotic characteristic is how they are detected by adding..." Clunky wording (just one example of hard to read text).
 * Technical terms need explanation on first appearance without diverging too much from the main topic. First the short explanation, then the first Wikilink. Examples include:
 * Bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU)
 * anti-BrdU
 * non-differentiated cell
 * pluripotent
 * cytoplasm
 * nucleus
 * mitotic
 * Bromodeoxyuridine
 * anterior, posterior or pharynx
 * blastema
 * Some things that likely don't need to be Wikilinked:
 * organism
 * organs
 * bone
 * Example of surprise links that need to be addressed:
 * link for development takes you to Morphogenesis, which means the same thing, but readers shouldn't be surprised
 * See MOS:MEASUREMENT for how to deal with measurements such as micron.
 * What - this doesn't make sense. "The gene smed-wi-1 is expressed by all neoblasts."
 * Some parts of the article look like they are notes that weren't implemented into prose.
 * POV words that need to be moved:
 * "extraordinary"
 * "huge" nucleus
 * maybe others
 * Image  is hard to read, not of good quality, and its reliability must be questioned because the user User:Bmooney2015 created it during a college course.

This is an initial round of items that keep this article from GA. They need to be addressed. Also verify that all sources support statements of fact. If you wish to nominate this or other articles for GA, I suggest studying the


 * Good article criteria

and articles it links to. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to review. I hope we'll see this article nominated again in the future.


 * Well written? No.
 * Accuracy? Did not verify as more work needs to be done.
 * Thorough? Did not verify as more work needs to be done.
 * Neutral POV? No.
 * Stable? Yes. Appears to be.
 * Images? No.
 * Closing comments: Please see all comments, study GA criteria, implement changes before submitting again.

Failing GA nomination for this round. — Eewilson (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will use these comments to improve on the article. Thanks for your work on this.--Akrasia25 (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely don't be discouraged. I think the article just needs more work, and your willingness and desire to improve Wikipedia is what we need! —Eewilson (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)