# Talk:Emmanuël Sérusiaux

This review is transcluded from Talk:Emmanuël Sérusiaux/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pomatostomus (talk · contribs) 07:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

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): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
I have a few questions regarding coverage:
Is there any information about his childhood or his inspirations? This isn't necessary if it doesn't exist, but could help the article.
I agree this would make the article better, but unfortunately I cannot find any information like this with the sources available. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC) Y
Where did Sérusiaux obtain his master's degree before going to Harvard?
Added. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC) Y
What position did Michel Foret hold when he served as Chief of Staff?
Added. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC) Y
What did he achieve/do during his political career? Several titles are listed, but there doesn't seem to be much info on the issues Sérusiaux tackled, particularly compared to the research section.
Couldn't find any citable details about this. I did find some general info about some objectives that the Wallonia Government was pursuing during his time as Deputy Chief of Staff (such as a Federal Program for the Reduction of Pesticides), but these documents don't mention him by name and I think it would be too WP:OR-ish to include this. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC) Y
Could you list at least the genera named after him in the recognition section?
The three genera named after him are the first ones listed in "Eponymy", which is a subsection of "Recognition". Esculenta (talk)  Y
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
#:Pass/Fail:  

Overall the article looks pretty good. I've listed some potential coverage issues I'd like you to look at above, and I need to check through the references, but otherwise it looks to be in pretty good shape. Nice article. Pomatostomus (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! I will get back in a few days after I dig around for some answers to your questions. Esculenta (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Pomatostomus, I've responded to your suggestions above. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Esculenta. I notice that Pomatostomus has not responded to this review for over 4 weeks. In this time, they have made only 6 small edits, and a good article nominee that they suggested was failed due to lack of response. I'm not sure what to do about this. Only Pomatostomus can continue the review. I would suggest that if this continues for much longer that you report it at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. On another note, the article looks really good - thank you for the work that you have put into it! Bibeyjj (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bibeyjj, just saw this comment – thanks. I will mention it at talk:GAN as you suggest. Esculenta (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Reviewer inactive for more than 3 weeks - closing this review as not promoted. Esculenta (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
The nominee Esculenta is unable to fail a review. Review is treated as abandoned, and a 2nd opinion review is put in place, this day. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 


### 2nd Opinion Observations
Reference 1 is excellent.
Red links are admitted within reason. Reference 2 and 3 are fine.
Biography section with programs for biodiversity in its natural habitats is good clear writing.
In the Research section I am unsure if field trip needs a hyperlink; links are not needed to European Community (later the European Union) as these are common terms in the public domain.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Page created 6 March 2021
Page has 8 edits by 3 editors
190 page views since creation
no edit warring observed, page is stable
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): 
Emmanuël Sérusiaux 2014.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
Gyalideopsis buckii (4504890398).jpg = Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
Impatiens serusiauxii.jpg =  Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
Ikaeria serusiauxii.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
Overall:
If the small matters regarding links can be resolved, this article may proceed to GA status. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
@Whiteguru:, I have delinked some terms as per your suggestions. Thanks for sorting out my procedural error and taking on this second opinion. Esculenta (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Esculenta: Thank you for your corrections. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 
 Passed