Talk:International Association for Plant Taxonomy/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

Starts GA Reassessment. The reassessment will follow the same sections of the Article. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Delisted. Legitimate concerns, no opposition or indicated improvements made. Some dead links were rescued. Matters raised in the reassessment section "Broad in its coverage" were not addressed. These matters will remain valid until the next GA Review, whereupon they must be addressed first. --Whiteguru (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment

Observations

   HTML document size: 80 kB
   Prose size (including all HTML code): 6104 B
   References (including all HTML code): 4713 B
   Wiki text: 7879 B
   Prose size (text only): 3686 B (540 words) "readable prose size"
   References (text only): 2162 B

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

Lede is up to date, Officers mentioned in Lede are correct, website link works.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

The IAPT research grant may merit inclusion on this page.
Collaboration with World Flora Online may merit inclusion on this page.
The Small Collections Grant Conditions may merit inclusion on this page.
Regnum Vegetabile is now up to volume 160. Are essential titles included?
The Shenzhen Code is now available online as a PDF. Why is this not a reference?
IAPT purpose does not cite what is on the About page on their website. It cites a 2004 issue of the IAPT magazine, Taxon. There is some variance in the statements of purpose.
There is a paucity of the origins and early history of IAPT on this page.
Consider (147 results)

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:

Page created 17 September 2005
Page has 146 edits by 83 editors
90 day page views = 645 views with an average of 7 views per day.
Page shows steady improvement and editing up to 2012, whereafter, edits are basically maintenance.
Page is considered stable, no edit warring noted.

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):

File:Iapt.png = low resolution of IAPT logo in the infobox; fair use claimed under US Copyright law. Accepted.

Notifying Editors:

Page Creator EncycloPetey
Editor Jimfbleak
Remaining editors have 2 or 1 edits to the page; not significant contributors
A total of two involved editors were able to be notified.

Overall:

This page needs updating and addition of new sources, and may benefit with inclusion of material on the origin and history of IAPT. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

Comment: I have notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants, who should have been notified. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:57,

Result: Delisted. Legitimate concerns, no opposition or indicated improvements made. Some dead links were rescued. Matters raised in the reassessment section "Broad in its coverage" were not addressed. These matters will remain valid until the next GA Review, whereupon they must be addressed first. --Whiteguru (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]