Talk:Multiple sequence alignment/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
This article appears more like an essay or a paper than an encyclopaedia artcile. Consider a thorough copy-edit for style and clarity.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I repaired dead links using WP:CHECKLINKS. All references appear to be OK

There are many uncited paragraphs.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Images such as File:Caspase-motif-alignment.png and File:RPLP0 90 ClustalW aln.gif are illegible in the article and appear to add little.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Main concerns: the style of the article is un-encyclopaedic, images add little, many uncited paragraphs. On hold until 7 March, major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Most of the unencylopedic style was inserted by a well-meaning but seemingly novice editor. I've removed much of that content because it was redundant with other, cited parts of the article. I've also significantly enlarged the lead image. Without such detail, the image is useless to the reader unless he or she clicks through to the larger media file -- which is unlikely. All paragraphs now have at least one relevant reference. If are any issues that remain to be addressed for the purposes of this reassessment, please let me know. Thanks, Emw (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]