Talk:The Colours of Animals

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Colours of Animals/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 12:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I am starting a review of this article. North8000 (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Review discussion

Initial thoughts. To be honest, I was avoiding taking this one for weeks based on my first looks. My first impression was that it is a high quality, well written, encyclopedic article on an interesting and encyclopedic topic, that is short on secondary sources. And I did not want to be the one to have to non-pass a high quality, well written, encyclopedic article on an interesting and encyclopedic topic. On second look, if the primary source is used within the Wikipedia guidelines for such, and it has enough secondary sources to establish wp:notability that would be enough in the area. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Reviewer.

Thank you for taking this on. Obviously an article about a book has to use the book itself. The secondary sources include detailed reviews by The New York Times, Alfred Russel Wallace and Edward Drinker Cope, so there are no concerns about notability. However, perhaps the recent addition of detailed reviews in Science journal and the British Medical Journal will help to alleviate any worries you may have had. I'm glad you seem to have found the article enjoyable -- looking forward to the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. North8000 (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

There are numbers in the "contents" section. Are those chapter numbers? If so it would be good to say that. North8000 (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes they are. Done.

Resolved. North8000 (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible suggestion for future work. (One area where I'm tougher than most is empathy for the reader) When an unfamiliar-to-most term is used, and one must know its basic meaning in order for the sentence to be absorbable, my recommendation would be to add a few word explanation in addition to internal-linking the term. You have already done this with most of them but not all of them. To me it's always frustrating to "lose" whole sentences or paragraphs of the article I'm reading unless I read the linked articles. This is just a sidebar possible-suggestion, (not a review comment) because all of these situations related to coverage of the topic of the book, not to the topic of the article which is the book. And so coverage of the former is not expected here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

• Meets this criteria.

Factually accurate and verifiable

• Meets this criteria. At first glance one notices that the book itself was heavily used as a source. But upon a closer look, items which need to be supported by secondary sources are supported by secondary sources. And that there are approximately 16 different secondary sources for the article. The largest use of the book was for an overview of it's contents. There were two sections of that, the second was a 100% simple straightforward listing. The first extracted key themes in the book which has been straightforward and uncontested. As such, IMO it is acceptable summarization. The rest of the article relies on the approx 16 secondary sources. North8000 (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

• Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

• Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

• Meets this criteria, article is stable,. North8000 (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

• Meets this criteria. Has 7 images, all free, to no article-specific use-rationales are required. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Result

This has passed as a Wikipedia good article. What a well-done and informative article! Congratulations! Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Reviewer

Thank you so much for the review and the congratulations. It's appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article

(this is "duplicated" here for when the review is no longer transcended.)

This has passed as a Wikipedia good article. What a well-done and informative article! Congratulations! North8000 (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Reviewer