Talk:Yeast/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

Landed on this page as a redirect from brewing yeast, and thought the information was unclear, and in some places insecure. I noted the section on Yeast extract is unsourced. I then noted other areas in the article are unsourced. This was made a Good Article in 2007, and the last assessment was in Feb 2010, over three years ago. I think it's worth another assessment. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• The article is stable, but on looking through the article history I noticed a high level of IP and new account vandalism without any balancing positive IP edits, so I will semi-protect the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Prose is not clear and easy to follow for the general reader. There is too much unexplained WP:JARGON. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. I note there are statements in the lead that are not in the main body - such as "Yeasts have recently been used to generate electricity in microbial fuel cells,[7] and produce ethanol for the biofuel industry", and there is information in the main body which is not summarised in the lead, such as the sections on beer and wine and yeast extract. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't researched the subject to know if the coverage is broad enough. I don't think on the whole that any aspect gets undue attention, though some trimming on the beer and the baking might be helpful, as there are Wikipedia articles readers can go to if they wish for more detailed information. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

On hold

There is useful information in this article, and it would be good to tidy it up. The main area needing attention is the clarity of meaning. The language is more suited to a specialist publication. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia with the aim of providing a summary of topics for the general reader. If readers cannot understand the article, then it is not helping them understand the topic. The next area is sourcing. Without appropriate sourcing a reader cannot trust the information in the article. The next area to pay attention to is the lead. The lead is not just an introduction, it is a standalone mini article which summarises the main points of the body. Many (most?) readers only read the lead.

I'll notify main contributors and put on hold for an initial seven days. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think the article also falls short on criteria 3a (major aspects) and 3b (focused). There should be separate sections on classification/nomenclature, cell biology, genetics, and perhaps chemotaxonomy. The beer/wine/baking sections should probably be pared down and moved to baker's yeast and other appropriate daughter articles. I intend to work on this article, but for logistical reasons would be happier to have the article demoted from GA in the interim (and will need a while to bring it back up to standard). Of course, anyone else is free to help :) Sasata (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning behind having the article delisted. It can be more motivating to work to bring an article to an audited condition, than to try to salvage one. In the first you are working for a positive result, in the second you are working to prevent a negative result. I also think there is a lot of work for a GAR, so a period of work done without a time limit and a reviewer looking over people's shoulder can be helpful. I will wait for the seven days though, and listen to what others have to say - unless we get a quick consensus to delist. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notification, SilkTork, though I'm actually not a major contributor to this article. I'm flat-out at work right now but I'll try to take a look over the weekend. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 23:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(I'll only have time for small changes, so no objection to delisting if that's what others want. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC))

If there's another support for delisting I will do it promptly rather than wait for the seven days. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Delist

There's no activity, and three people agreeing to a delist with no objections, so I'll cut this short and delist. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)