Talk:Tree of life (biology)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Boca Jóvenes (talk · contribs) 14:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Looks as if it's been waiting a long time. Hope to be back soon. BoJó &#124;  talk  UTC 14:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looking forward to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

GA criteria

 * 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):
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

This passes very easily. It is well-written, educational and interesting. The sourcing and citations are fine; the illustrations are appropriate and useful to the reader; the coverage is within scope and, though I'm by no means an expert on the subject, I'd say the article is complete. The only things I could think of that might help the reader a bit were two subject links I've added (embryology and paleontology). It might be worth checking to see if there are other terms where a link might help but, really, it would just be fine-tuning. This is not so much a good article as an excellent article and I'm promoting it to WP:GA. Congratulations and well done. BoJó &#124;  talk  UTC 14:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review, and for adding the links! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)