Talk:Myxogastria/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. 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) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Parts of the article are unacceptably poorly written, seemingly machine-translated from German. See discussion below. Much better now, well done everyone who helped.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	lead section: reasonable length (could be a little more detailed to give a better overview). layout: ok. words to watch: ok	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Refs are acceptable for GA, but they are in varying styles, and several refs to the same books duplicate all but the page nos - ideally these would be rationalised with a bibliography.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	OK	Pass
(c) (original research)	Not an issue here.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Article clearly covers main aspects of the topic; there appears to be room for improvement here post-GA to explain things more thoroughly with more examples (and probably diagrams and micrographs).	Pass
(b) (focused)	Doubts about focus have been removed by the requested copy-editing.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Historic and more recent views of different researchers are described fairly.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No sign of edit-warring.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	OK	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	OK	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	This article does quite a good job of making this "unprepossessing" group interesting and even attractive. There is room, post-GA, for more illustrations, examples, diagrams and explanation. As the group's complicated relationships become better understood, the article will need to be reworked to reflect improved understanding.

Discussion

There is a note on the Talk page about refs labelled "now". Has this been resolved? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

While reading the article, I've found the use of English uneven. Parts are quite well-written, but others seem to be raw machine-translation apparently from German. There were also long comments in the text from a German wiki, not matched by the current English text so it seems someone intended to use these at some stage. At the very least, the article needs to be copy-edited into reasonable English by someone who is familiar with the Myxogastria. I can guess that "plasm" means "cytoplasm" but on more specialised matters, expert attention is clearly needed. In places the article is not comprehensible, and in many others it can only be read by guessing what the German must have been (with some biological knowledge. I have therefore put the GA review on hold until the article has been copy-edited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC) (Done)

• Thanks for your review. I will check the reference and fix the "now" reference if needed. I did not translate the hidden text in German as I was not sure if it applied only to Germany or the rest of the world. German nomenclatures, especially biological, may be a bit different.--Tomcat (7) 09:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)