Talk:Human uses of living things/GA1
Appearance
(Redirected from Talk:Living things in culture/GA1)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: HalfGig (talk · contribs) 13:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- Other wiki articles can be used as refs? I thought that a no-no?? See refs 67-70.
- These are just cited to the book as usual, and wikilinked. Added author, date.
- Ref 66 needs a link, date, author, etc
- Done.
- Ref 71 should have page numbers
- Done.
- poss copyvio via earwig's tool: see this. The other site is tripod so I think it copied from wiki. I think there is a process/talk page tag to alleviate concerns but I don't know how to go about it. HalfGig talk 01:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Other wiki articles can be used as refs? I thought that a no-no?? See refs 67-70.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- Tripod has clearly made use of Wikipedia quite a while back, leaving out the refs: indeed I believe it habitually does. I've never used Tripod and am not about to start. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- I know and agree. I said it (tripod) probably copied from wiki. I know there is some template you can put on the talk page to say wiki is not the violater but I don't recall what the template name is. Or do we not even need to worry about that? HalfGig talk 11:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's fine, everyone can see they copied from us not the other way around. And the overall resemblance to the current text is pretty weak anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- I know and agree. I said it (tripod) probably copied from wiki. I know there is some template you can put on the talk page to say wiki is not the violater but I don't recall what the template name is. Or do we not even need to worry about that? HalfGig talk 11:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Tripod has clearly made use of Wikipedia quite a while back, leaving out the refs: indeed I believe it habitually does. I've never used Tripod and am not about to start. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail: