- This review is transcluded from Talk:Genes, Brain and Behavior/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: TLSuda (talk · contribs) 18:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Greetings! I know you've waited a few months for a review, but I have good news! I'm stuck in a tin can for 5 hours tomorrow late night UTC, so I'm going to use that time wisely to review this article. I expect to have the review posted in the early morning hours UTC the following day. (Approximately less than 36 hours from this post.) I look forward to reading and reviewing this article. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- See Prose review below.
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- 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 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:
- Pass or Fail:
- Almost there, see Prose review below. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- In the last sentence in the lead, change the end to: "...for free two years after publication."
- The second sentence of the Overview and history section. Should end with a period quarterly. The next sentence should start with "As submissions..." Also change "...to an 8-times-a-year one..." to "...to 8-times-a-year..."
- "All content is available online for free after 24 months." should be changed to "All content is available online for free 24 months after publication."
- Does any source include the reason why the journal went to online only? If so, this should be included in the article.
- In the reception section, the journals that cited it the most often, it lists this journal itself. I just want to make sure this is correct, that this journal is one of the top five journals that cites itself.
- Are the abstracting and indexing and article categories notable or necessary? I don't think either section is encyclopedic, and probably both should be removed.
Hope this is the correct way to do this, it's my first GA review :-) I have followed all of your suggestions above, except 1, the abstracting/indexing section. This is always included in articles on academic journals because most of those articles derive their notability from the inclusion in selective indexes (see WP:NJournals and WP:JWG). If you like, I could re-format it as a sentence ("Genes, Brain and Behavior is abstracted and indexed in Academic Search and Academic Search Premier, Biological Abstracts, BIOSIS Previews...."), but I think the columns format is clearer. Thanks for your efforts and for the suggestions! --Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- I cannot find a good article that is similar to this one, so I cannot check for sure on the abstracting/indexing. I don't think that is enough of an issue to keep this from passing. That being said, the article has pass its GA review. Congrats!, TLSuda (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)