![]() | Mineral evolution has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 7, 2019. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
![]() | A fact from Mineral evolution appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 March 2019 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mgasparin ( talk · contribs) 23:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I will be reviewing this article. If you have any questions or comments please leave them below! Thanks!
1. Is this article reasonably well written?
Prose appears quite well written. It is clear, concise and does not appear to have grammatical errors.
I don't have any lengthy comments for this section as I can't find anything glaringly wrong.
1a: This article complies with the
manual of style guidelines for
lead sections,
layout,
words to watch,
fiction, and
list incorporation: The lead is also within the max. paragraph limit, and provides a general summary of the ariticle.
2. Is this article verifiable,
verifiable with no original research?
It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline
I do not see any "citation needed" or "bad reference" tags. I ran the IA bot and fixed any links that were not working properly.
2a. All
in-line citations are from
reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or
likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;science-based articles should follow the
scientific citation guidelines:
2b. It contains
no original research:
2c.It contains no
copyright violations nor
plagiarism:
2d. It addresses the
main aspects of the topic:
This one I have a problem with, as there is a major history section at the bottom. Does this relate at all to mineral evolution????
2e. It stays
focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see
summary style):
See comments above for 2d.
3. Is it
neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
4. Is it stable?
No ongoing
edit wars or major changes or content disputes.
5.Is it illustrated, if possible, by
images?
Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid fair use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
5a: Images are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I would like a second opinion on that one section but otherwise this article looks good. Thanks! Mgasparin ( talk) 23:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | Mineral evolution has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 7, 2019. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
![]() | A fact from Mineral evolution appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 March 2019 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mgasparin ( talk · contribs) 23:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I will be reviewing this article. If you have any questions or comments please leave them below! Thanks!
1. Is this article reasonably well written?
Prose appears quite well written. It is clear, concise and does not appear to have grammatical errors.
I don't have any lengthy comments for this section as I can't find anything glaringly wrong.
1a: This article complies with the
manual of style guidelines for
lead sections,
layout,
words to watch,
fiction, and
list incorporation: The lead is also within the max. paragraph limit, and provides a general summary of the ariticle.
2. Is this article verifiable,
verifiable with no original research?
It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline
I do not see any "citation needed" or "bad reference" tags. I ran the IA bot and fixed any links that were not working properly.
2a. All
in-line citations are from
reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or
likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;science-based articles should follow the
scientific citation guidelines:
2b. It contains
no original research:
2c.It contains no
copyright violations nor
plagiarism:
2d. It addresses the
main aspects of the topic:
This one I have a problem with, as there is a major history section at the bottom. Does this relate at all to mineral evolution????
2e. It stays
focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see
summary style):
See comments above for 2d.
3. Is it
neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
4. Is it stable?
No ongoing
edit wars or major changes or content disputes.
5.Is it illustrated, if possible, by
images?
Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid fair use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
5a: Images are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I would like a second opinion on that one section but otherwise this article looks good. Thanks! Mgasparin ( talk) 23:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)