This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…this article is in the scope of
Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008.
It needs a good review on about everything. I will take all the help I can get.
:D
Thanks, Yohmom ( talk) 02:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, the good thing about PR is that it doesn't matter how much of a COI you have, you can still comment. That's one of the (many) nice things about it, as it allows all editors to comment and discuss the article, without there being a final yes/no decision like there is at GA/FA nominations.
Anyway, I've taken a look over the article, and have a few comments. I'm assuming that you want to take this article on to GA, so that's what I'm keeping in mind as I review the article.
I've made a few tweaks to the article, just minor c/e stuff. I've watchlisted the article and this PR, so feel free to respond here with any questions you may have. Good luck with the article, it looks like you're doing a great job on this. This is especially true on the referencing - very nice work on the diversity and quality of the sources you've gathered. Dana boomer ( talk) 16:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
As Dana boomer has already said, this article is already looking great. The language is easy to understand, it seems pretty comprehensive and there's a good range of references. So just a few minor points for possible improvement from me.
Hope that helps. Bogbumper ( talk) 15:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…this article is in the scope of
Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008.
It needs a good review on about everything. I will take all the help I can get.
:D
Thanks, Yohmom ( talk) 02:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, the good thing about PR is that it doesn't matter how much of a COI you have, you can still comment. That's one of the (many) nice things about it, as it allows all editors to comment and discuss the article, without there being a final yes/no decision like there is at GA/FA nominations.
Anyway, I've taken a look over the article, and have a few comments. I'm assuming that you want to take this article on to GA, so that's what I'm keeping in mind as I review the article.
I've made a few tweaks to the article, just minor c/e stuff. I've watchlisted the article and this PR, so feel free to respond here with any questions you may have. Good luck with the article, it looks like you're doing a great job on this. This is especially true on the referencing - very nice work on the diversity and quality of the sources you've gathered. Dana boomer ( talk) 16:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
As Dana boomer has already said, this article is already looking great. The language is easy to understand, it seems pretty comprehensive and there's a good range of references. So just a few minor points for possible improvement from me.
Hope that helps. Bogbumper ( talk) 15:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)