Talk:Emmanuël Sérusiaux/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pomatostomus (talk · contribs) 07:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- I have a few questions regarding coverage:
- Is there any information about his childhood or his inspirations? This isn't necessary if it doesn't exist, but could help the article.
- I agree this would make the article better, but unfortunately I cannot find any information like this with the sources available. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Where did Sérusiaux obtain his master's degree before going to Harvard?
- Added. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- What position did Michel Foret hold when he served as Chief of Staff?
- Added. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- What did he achieve/do during his political career? Several titles are listed, but there doesn't seem to be much info on the issues Sérusiaux tackled, particularly compared to the research section.
- Couldn't find any citable details about this. I did find some general info about some objectives that the Wallonia Government was pursuing during his time as Deputy Chief of Staff (such as a Federal Program for the Reduction of Pesticides), but these documents don't mention him by name and I think it would be too WP:OR-ish to include this. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Could you list at least the genera named after him in the recognition section?
- Is there any information about his childhood or his inspirations? This isn't necessary if it doesn't exist, but could help the article.
- I have a few questions regarding coverage:
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
#:Pass/Fail:
Overall the article looks pretty good. I've listed some potential coverage issues I'd like you to look at above, and I need to check through the references, but otherwise it looks to be in pretty good shape. Nice article. Pomatostomus (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing! I will get back in a few days after I dig around for some answers to your questions. Esculenta (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Pomatostomus, I've responded to your suggestions above. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Esculenta. I notice that Pomatostomus has not responded to this review for over 4 weeks. In this time, they have made only 6 small edits, and a good article nominee that they suggested was failed due to lack of response. I'm not sure what to do about this. Only Pomatostomus can continue the review. I would suggest that if this continues for much longer that you report it at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. On another note, the article looks really good - thank you for the work that you have put into it! Bibeyjj (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Bibeyjj, just saw this comment – thanks. I will mention it at talk:GAN as you suggest. Esculenta (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Esculenta. I notice that Pomatostomus has not responded to this review for over 4 weeks. In this time, they have made only 6 small edits, and a good article nominee that they suggested was failed due to lack of response. I'm not sure what to do about this. Only Pomatostomus can continue the review. I would suggest that if this continues for much longer that you report it at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. On another note, the article looks really good - thank you for the work that you have put into it! Bibeyjj (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Reviewer inactive for more than 3 weeks - closing this review as not promoted. Esculenta (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
The nominee Esculenta is unable to fail a review. Review is treated as abandoned, and a 2nd opinion review is put in place, this day. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
2nd Opinion Observations
[edit]- Reference 1 is excellent.
- Red links are admitted within reason. Reference 2 and 3 are fine.
- Biography section with programs for biodiversity in its natural habitats is good clear writing.
- In the Research section I am unsure if field trip needs a hyperlink; links are not needed to European Community (later the European Union) as these are common terms in the public domain.
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Page created 6 March 2021
- Page has 8 edits by 3 editors
- 190 page views since creation
- no edit warring observed, page is stable
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Emmanuël Sérusiaux 2014.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
- Gyalideopsis buckii (4504890398).jpg = Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
- Impatiens serusiauxii.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
- Ikaeria serusiauxii.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
- Overall:
- If the small matters regarding links can be resolved, this article may proceed to GA status. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
@Whiteguru:, I have delinked some terms as per your suggestions. Thanks for sorting out my procedural error and taking on this second opinion. Esculenta (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Esculenta: Thank you for your corrections. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)