Talk:Gorilla/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: BelovedFreak 16:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS): 
- Prose seems to be fairly good, although I haven't gone over it in detail due to other problems.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Citations needed throughout
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Not assessed
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- appears neutral
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Inevitably, a fair amount of recent vandalism
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- Look ok.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Lead needs expanding, citations needed throughout.
- Pass/Fail:
This needs many more citations. I've detailed a few specific problems that I see below.
Prose/MoS[edit]
Lead[edit]
- Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should adequately summarise the whole of the rest of the article. It doesn't.
- Is this article about a genus? That's what I gather from the infobox, but it isn't clear from the lead.
References[edit]
- Some work is needed on citation formats. For example, what is currently #28, has News.bbc.co.uk; should be BBC News (no italics) with BBC as publisher. All should have author, date, accessdate, publisher, title where available & appropriate. Website names shouldn't be in italics, just book, journal, newspaper & magazine names.
Citations/references[edit]
There are a couple of dead links marked in the references section
Physical characteristics[edit]
- Citations are needed in this section
Group life[edit]
- This section is completely unsourced
Intelligence[edit]
- "Gorillas are closely related to humans and are considered highly intelligent." - needs citation & attribution
Economist; 8/16/2008, Vol. 388 Issue 8593, p78-79, 2p, 1
There are more sources I can provide if there is any trouble accessing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan616 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
"can think about the past and future.[52] " This reference makes a totally unfounded assertion. The source cited is not scholarly, and although it does quote some organizations later in the article, the claim that gorillas can think about past and future is in no way supported. Sad, too, because I wanted to use this for school. It would be cool if there were some actual evidence that this is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.52.239.73 (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Interactions with humans[edit]
- More citations needed
Cultural references[edit]
- Unsourced
Broad?[edit]
- I admit I'm not an expert here at all, but I am a little surprised that this article is so short, and uses so few sources, compared to, say, lion. Is it because there is more information in the species articles?
Pass/Fail[edit]
Unfortunately this article does not meet the GA criteria at this time. Would recommend a peer review if you're looking for more feedback before another nomination.--BelovedFreak 16:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)