# Talk:Tree: A Life Story

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tree: A Life Story/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)
This is a solid article, but there is one concern before I pass it.
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
I'd prefer a few more links in the "Synopsis" section.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
The whole of the "Synopsis" is unreferenced. How are the web references (Allen + Unwin; RFBD; Science + Spirit) reliable against WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB? Have any other websites acknowledged these websites to prove that they are reliable?
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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
On Hold for 7-days; after which I will fail if no improvements have been made. D.M.N. (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I added wikilinks [1] and citations to the Synopsis [2]. Let me know if there is anything specific you would like to see with a citation or wikilink. Reliability needs to be judged in terms of what the references are being used to claim. In this instance, Allen + Unwin and RFBD are publishers of the book (Australia edition and audio edition, respectively) and the references are to their websites to confirm that they are the publishers. The Science + Spirit (a magazine about religion and science) is just confirming they did an interview with the author (and the issue and pages where the book excerpt was published). Nothing exceptional came from the interview (mostly repeating what he said in previous interviews) but I just used it to demonstrate the type of promotions he did for the book. --maclean 01:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you use different citation templates, instead of just the generic {{Citation}} template which occurs several times in this article, can you try and use things like {{Cite book}}, {{Cite news}} etc. I'm saying this, because I think this article could, with a bit of work easily become a Featured article. D.M.N. (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm thinking of taking it to FAC in a few weeks. WP:CITE allows me to use either {{Citation}} or {{Cite book}}/{{Cite news}}, so long as it is consistent throughout the article. I used (and prefer) {{Citation}} throughout this article because I find it easier to use one generic template opposed to few specific ones. --maclean 01:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Congratulations! I suggest though that you do consider changing to other citation tags in future for this article as {{Citation}} is considered a "generic" template tag. Again, well done! D.M.N. (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Tree: A Life Story. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071004162814/http://www.science-spirit.org/webexclusives.php?article_id=622 to http://www.science-spirit.org/webexclusives.php?article_id=622
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)