Talk:Tree: A Life Story/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tree: A Life Story/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a solid article, but there is one concern before I pass it.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I'd prefer a few more links in the "Synopsis" section.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The whole of the "Synopsis" is unreferenced. How are the web references (Allen + Unwin; RFBD; Science + Spirit) reliable against WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB? Have any other websites acknowledged these websites to prove that they are reliable?
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On Hold for 7-days; after which I will fail if no improvements have been made. D.M.N. (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I added wikilinks and citations to the Synopsis . Let me know if there is anything specific you would like to see with a citation or wikilink. Reliability needs to be judged in terms of what the references are being used to claim. In this instance, Allen + Unwin and RFBD are publishers of the book (Australia edition and audio edition, respectively) and the references are to their websites to confirm that they are the publishers. The Science + Spirit (a magazine about religion and science) is just confirming they did an interview with the author (and the issue and pages where the book excerpt was published). Nothing exceptional came from the interview (mostly repeating what he said in previous interviews) but I just used it to demonstrate the type of promotions he did for the book. --maclean 01:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you use different citation templates, instead of just the generic template which occurs several times in this article, can you try and use things like,  etc. I'm saying this, because I think this article could, with a bit of work easily become a Featured article. D.M.N. (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm thinking of taking it to FAC in a few weeks. WP:CITE allows me to use either or /, so long as it is consistent throughout the article. I used (and prefer)  throughout this article because I find it easier to use one generic template opposed to few specific ones. --maclean 01:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)
 * I added wikilinks and citations to the Synopsis . Let me know if there is anything specific you would like to see with a citation or wikilink. Reliability needs to be judged in terms of what the references are being used to claim. In this instance, Allen + Unwin and RFBD are publishers of the book (Australia edition and audio edition, respectively) and the references are to their websites to confirm that they are the publishers. The Science + Spirit (a magazine about religion and science) is just confirming they did an interview with the author (and the issue and pages where the book excerpt was published). Nothing exceptional came from the interview (mostly repeating what he said in previous interviews) but I just used it to demonstrate the type of promotions he did for the book. --maclean 01:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you use different citation templates, instead of just the generic template which occurs several times in this article, can you try and use things like,  etc. I'm saying this, because I think this article could, with a bit of work easily become a Featured article. D.M.N. (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm thinking of taking it to FAC in a few weeks. WP:CITE allows me to use either or /, so long as it is consistent throughout the article. I used (and prefer)  throughout this article because I find it easier to use one generic template opposed to few specific ones. --maclean 01:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Congratulations! I suggest though that you do consider changing to other citation tags in future for this article as is considered a "generic" template tag. Again, well done! D.M.N. (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: