Talk:Endless Forms Most Beautiful (book)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 10:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Happy to give this a look. Vanamonde (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   All sources look decent.

   C. It contains no original research:

   All items that need sources are sourced

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's tool is clear, spotchecks reveal no issues

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No extraneous material

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Stable

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images are appropriately licensed so far as I can tell.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Caption issues addressed

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All minor concerns addressed: happy to pass this. Vanamonde (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Solid article, not too much wrong with it that I can see. Some brief comments:

Thank you!

• Given that the page is not overlong, I'm wondering if we could use a brief paragraph about the author and/or previous works.

Done.

• This is really just personal aesthetic preference, but I'm not the biggest fan of a structure that departs from prose paragraphs or bulleted lists. At the least, I'm wondering if we could dispense with the chapter subtitles (ie Modern Forms, Ancient Designs) and perhaps unbold chapter titles.

Unbolded all the chapter headings. I think it's probably best to keep the subtitles as they're far more explicit than the rather 'cute' chapter titles.

• There's a few chapters starting with "Carroll..." and one that doesn't mention the book at all: I'm wondering if we could mix it up a bit, by saying "the section.." or "the chapter..." Not mandatory.

Done.

• I think the image captions, and the drosophila embryo in particular, need to be tied a little more closely to the text, even if that makes them a bit wordier.

Done.

• Some variation in tense in the reception section: consistent past tense is best, is it not?

Done.

• Including the title of the review in the image caption seems a bit like journalese.

Removed.

That's about all for now, I'll give it a quick look after these have been addressed but I don't expect there to be much more. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde: Many thanks for the review, I think we're all done now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)