Talk:Genetic drift/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Hi, I'll be doing this review. I'm going to try and dig up my old class notes on the topic to refresh myself with the subject material before digging into the article. In the meantime, could the editor(s) please ensure that every major paragraph has a citation? It will be required for GA promotion. Hope to be finished a set of initial comments in about 4-5 days. Sasata (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've just read the article closely and made some minor copyedits to the text. I must say I'm impressed with the readability of the article, and I think it serves as an excellent introduction to the topic. Just two things I'd like to see:
- more citations... this will be necessary before I can promote the article
- a search for review papers using the term "genetic drift" in PubMed turns up 190 articles, many of which look like they would be excellent sources to add to this article. Please consider using some of these review articles as sources; this will also benefit the reader who is using this article as a starting point for further investigation of the topic. I'll place this review on hold. Sasata (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi again, how are we doing with this review? I see some progress has been made in getting the article citation-compliant, but there's still many unreferenced paragraphs. Is more time required? Do you want some assistance? Sasata (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Many paragraphs need no citation (basic and uncontroversial), which ones are you referring to? Narayanese (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would still like to have a source for the section on Probability and allele frequency. Yes, its basic to those with university training in the subject, but what if someone else wants to read more about it? It's common courtesy to give a link to a page or chapter in a general textbook so they can independently confirm that what is written here is true. How about the 1st paragraph of "Genetic drift versus natural selection". The first and second paragraphs of "Population bottleneck". Just add general refs for those and I think we'll be good to go. Sasata (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. I forgot to "watch" this discussion page. That's why this comment is so late. The requirements sound reasonable to me. The general probability stuff is probably the most difficult for me to find. As you hint above, I considered this so basic that I dared to write it without looking anything up. --Ettrig (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, it looks good now. Thanks to you (and Narayanese) for helping to make a good article which will benefit countless students of genetics! Sasata (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- Very clearly written.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):
- A comparison of before and after GAN versions shows that many references have been added during the course of the review, and I believe the current version is now adequately cited.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Covers the basics of the topic without straying too much into what would be the domain of other related articles.
- a (major aspects):
- 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, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- All image have appropriate free-use licenses.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
