Neoblast was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 18, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Eewilson ( talk · contribs) 09:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@
Akrasia25: Hello! I have picked up Neoblast for GA review. It is going to need some work before it will be ready to be a GA, but hopefuly, working together, we can get it there. I will begin with a read and then hit on some issues with suggestions. Please respond to this comment so that I know you're available and ready to work on this article. Thanks! —
Eewilson (
talk) 18:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Akrasia25: Hi! Okay, I want to let you know two things. This is my second GA review article and I did not know what a neoblast is until I read the article for review. I think this is a good thing because one of the most difficult things about technical articles is making them readable to a wide audience. Let's begin there and with discussion of the LEAD and project conventions. At this point, do a bit of investigation of the following items and get back with me. I think that these 3 areas will need to be addressed first. Let me know if you have any questions.
— Eewilson ( talk) 01:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Akrasia25: Checking in on the status of this? Eewilson ( talk) 17:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Akrasia25: Okay, I see that. I have more comments.
Mechanism of neoblast specification during regeneration.jpg
is hard to read, not of good quality, and its reliability must be questioned because the user
User:Bmooney2015 created it during a college course.This is an initial round of items that keep this article from GA. They need to be addressed. Also verify that all sources support statements of fact. If you wish to nominate this or other articles for GA, I suggest studying the
and articles it links to. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to review. I hope we'll see this article nominated again in the future.
Failing GA nomination for this round. — Eewilson ( talk) 19:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
The article requires significant rewrite. I removed most of the inaccurate statements, but the article needs to be restructured. Dd659 ( talk) 09:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Neoblast was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 18, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Eewilson ( talk · contribs) 09:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@
Akrasia25: Hello! I have picked up Neoblast for GA review. It is going to need some work before it will be ready to be a GA, but hopefuly, working together, we can get it there. I will begin with a read and then hit on some issues with suggestions. Please respond to this comment so that I know you're available and ready to work on this article. Thanks! —
Eewilson (
talk) 18:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Akrasia25: Hi! Okay, I want to let you know two things. This is my second GA review article and I did not know what a neoblast is until I read the article for review. I think this is a good thing because one of the most difficult things about technical articles is making them readable to a wide audience. Let's begin there and with discussion of the LEAD and project conventions. At this point, do a bit of investigation of the following items and get back with me. I think that these 3 areas will need to be addressed first. Let me know if you have any questions.
— Eewilson ( talk) 01:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Akrasia25: Checking in on the status of this? Eewilson ( talk) 17:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Akrasia25: Okay, I see that. I have more comments.
Mechanism of neoblast specification during regeneration.jpg
is hard to read, not of good quality, and its reliability must be questioned because the user
User:Bmooney2015 created it during a college course.This is an initial round of items that keep this article from GA. They need to be addressed. Also verify that all sources support statements of fact. If you wish to nominate this or other articles for GA, I suggest studying the
and articles it links to. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to review. I hope we'll see this article nominated again in the future.
Failing GA nomination for this round. — Eewilson ( talk) 19:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
The article requires significant rewrite. I removed most of the inaccurate statements, but the article needs to be restructured. Dd659 ( talk) 09:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)