Talk:Brain/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Reassessment[edit]

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

Kept--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I am reviewing this article as part of GA Sweeps. This article needs to be edited to meet the current standards of WP:WIAGA. I am about to outline a partial list of issues that need to be addressed. After I post this listing, I will give concerned and interested editors a week before I reevaluate the article's quality rating. I will be following along with the progress of the article and may make additional comments as it is appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Neurology task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy, OldakQuill (talk · contribs), Vsmith (talk · contribs), BorgQueen (talk · contribs), and Hordaland (talk · contribs); Looie496 (talk · contribs) not notified due to his prompt response here before completion of the review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you combine the two hatnotes into a one line hatnote.
    Done. (Had to be written by hand, the usual templates automatically give separate lines.) Looie496 (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The images are all licensed properly, however, according to the alt checker they need WP:ALT text.
    Fixed. This is my first time adding alt text, I would appreciate it if someone could review these. Thanks, Oldak Quill 19:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    Looks good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • according to the link checker the article has a couple of deadlinks.
    Fixed. --Oldak Quill 19:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • according to the dablink checker the article has an unresolved dab link.
    Fixed. Looie496 (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • the article includes numerous entire paragraphs that are entirely uncited. Assuming that the article is properly structured with paragraphs connoting distinct ideas, each paragrpaph should have at least one citation.
  • the article has several "citation needed" tags.
    Unless I missed something, I think I have provided cites for all of the tagged places. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • What is the system used to place the portal templates? They just seem strewn about.
    We've been trying to put the WPNEURO template near the top of neuroscience articles so that it would be visible -- unfortunately Wikipedia's layout functionality makes this very difficult. As for the other template -- Mind and Brain -- it's in a reasonable place as far as I can see. Looie496 (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    It wasn't clear to me that the first one was carefully placed, but I have no better suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • See WP:CAPTION#Wording as it relates to the use of periods.
    Fixed, if I understood what you were getting at. Looie496 (talk) 03:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    Not really. There continue to be two captions with two periods but not two complete sentences.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    I took a shot at those two. Please see what you think. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

After I notify all related projects and a few of the prominent editors of this page, I will monitor the progress on addressing these concerns. I will reevaluate the article after a week.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to fill you in on developments, I did a total rewrite of this article last year. It was already rated GA at the time but really shouldn't have been -- it was way below the mark in my opinion. I feel that it is at least nearly a GA now except that I've put off fixing the format on a couple of refs that people have added. I sent it to FA last October but it didn't pass -- a number of people chipped in to make improvements though. Not trying to sway the reassessment but I thought it might help you to know the history. Looie496 (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
This article has improved tremendously. The following concerns remain:
  1. Numerous paragraphs remain uncited, including one that represents an entire uncited section.
  2. I think some of the bullet pointed and enumerated lists could be converted to prose. If left as is each fact or bullet should have a citation.
I hope to see these remaining issues addressed in the next few days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that has now been done. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The article could still be improved if the inline citations were to specific pages rather than entire works, but this is sufficient for now. In the future, those refs will need to be made more specific.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)