Talk:Haplogroup E-V38/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The article meets the manual of style requirements, but there are some issues with the prose (e.g. in the lead, "It often found..." -- should be "It often IS found..."). There's a few other cases throughout the text where words seem to be missing (e.g. "Populations on the northern fringes of West Africa and central Eastern Africa have BEEN tested...") etc. A good copyedit is needed. Copyedit completed. Looks good. WTF? (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The references appear to be good, reliable, and for the most part, formatted and placed correctly. Reference #2 seems to contain only the URL and title and year, but no information on the publisher, author, or date URL was retrieved. It may help to use the citation templates for some of these.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article is good, and for a geneticist or someone familiar with the topic, I think they would get it. But for someone not familiar with the study of genetics, the average reader will become lost in a lot of the technical details. So the language needs to be brought down a notch. The lead section also needs to better summarize the article (see WP:LEAD). I also didn't really get why this particular haplogroup is important? Why is it studied? Are there characteristics or phenotypes commonly associated with individuals with this haplogroup? The only thing that really addresses this (and not really very well) is the sentence in the lead: "Geneticists study these y-chromosomal variants to learn the genetic history of populations." So some more information in a section on common characteristics and the overall significance is definitely needed before this article is made a GA.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Article meets WP:NPOV requirements.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Article passes the stability criterion.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
~~The distribution image is currently tagged that the copyright status from Flickr cannot be verified. Not knowing the source or copyright status of the image, it does not meet GA criteria.~~ I can see that the tag has been removed, and I can also confirm that the image is reproduced from the open-access journal, BMC Evolutionary Biology. That is properly cited on the image tag and the CC 2.0 tag is also present, which conforms to the requirements of the Creative Commons 2.0 license, so it's use is fine. WTF? (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
The issues with it are addressed above. The article is on hold for two weeks so these issues may be addressed, after which the article will either be passed or failed. WTF? (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Additional copyediting has been requested for the article.

3. I have tried to expand the lead a little to explain why E1b1a is studied in population genetics. The y-chromosome doesn't affect anything in humans besides being male, so it has nothing to do with any particular phenotypes or characteristics. The article is silent on this because it is not an issue. It is only used to trace men to a common male ancestor.

Genetics is a subject that the more you simplify it the less you understand. I have no idea for simplifying it. I had thought the article lacked enough technical detail.

6. I am not sure how or why there is a Flickr tag. It is clearly cited were the image comes from- Alexandra Rosa (2007) "Y-chromosomal diversity in the population of Guinea-Bissau: a multiethnic perspective". It is given in citation of article and image summary. I’ll remove the image if the citation is not good enough to pass the GA Review.

--Brout8 (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over two weeks; have the issues been addressed? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay. I've been traveling a lot due to an upcoming relocation for a new job, which has cut into my Wikipedia volunteer time. Anyway, the article looks good. Many of the issues have been addressed. The concerns remaining are two. First, there seem to be some significant changes to the infobox -- compare with the 12/16/2010 revision. Can you explain your reasoning for removing or changing much of the information?

Second, I think the tables in the distribution section are much easier to read. However, the references added to specific data points in the table make it a bit more difficult to see the actual data (a bit sloppier). I think the preferred way of handling this in Wikipedia is to either put the references for the table in the table caption/header, or in the sentence in the discussion introducing the table. In this case, since there are many citations for the individual items of data, it would be preferable to put the citations in a third column to the right, entitled "references". That would be much easier to read.

I think if these two remaining issues are addressed, the article can be promoted to GA. WTF? (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The highest frequency information in the infobox was redundant as it was covered in the distribution section. I changed the 'defining mutations' because of the new Trombetta research that changed the subclades positioning. There is some uncertainty of the respective positions of some of the SNPs. I made note on the tree. I figured out how to add the reference columns to the boxes. --Brout8 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's 2 weeks down the line again. I see that Brout8 has addressed the last two points made by WTF? ... Does this mean the review can be closed as passed? --DeVerm (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry about the delay. The article now meets GA criteria and will be listed. WTF? (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]