Talk:History of Earth/GA1

GA Reassessment[edit]

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This review is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
We generally don't refer to ourselves when writing about a subject (MOS:BEGIN). "The history of the Earth is a summary..." and " It covers the leading, most current scientific theories and.." should be changed to a more natural presentation of the subject. Such as: "The history of the Earth spans geologic history, the evolution of life, and modern civilization..." Referring to the article itself is generally avoided.

B. MoS compliance:
Introduction is a good length (WP:LEAD). Some of the redlinks could be changed to bluelinked articles, such as "outer asteroid belt", which is covered in "asteroid belt" (WP:REDLINK). Prolific overlinking (WP:OVERLINK).
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Some references are provided.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
This is where the article is really lacking. Long captions are ok, but there is a {{cn}} template in one of them, and probably belongs on all of them. The body is mostly cited, but there are some sections which lack cites entirely. Many of the links are also dead.

C. No original research:
Unsourced statements may contain original research.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
This is the strong point, IMO. Article goes into detail without getting off topic.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Images are also great quality. Could use some trimming on the captions, and better placement.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Article will be placed on hold until issues 1a and 2b can be addressed, 1b is optional. If an editor does not express interest in addressing these issues within seven days, the article will be delisted and reassessed as B class. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 17:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After 7 days with no response, I have delisted this article. Feel free to renominate once these issues have been addressed. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I've worked on the prose of the intro - I've not announced it here, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I noticed, but I wasn't sure of your intentions. I thought you were just making driveby edits to the article, I checked the top contributors and your name wasn't there so I assumed you had no interest in making the kind of edits needed to improve this article. Its no big deal to renominate anyway, and who knows I might even review it again if that were to happen. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 21:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not quite wrong - I came upon the article by accident, found your comments, and decided to fix a few. But I'll not handle everything on my own - I hope some more editors jump in. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]