This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Geology Mid‑importance Talk:Mineral evolution is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Rocks and minerals Mid‑importance Mineral evolution is part of WikiProject Rocks and minerals, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use rocks and minerals resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Rocks and mineralsWikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsTemplate:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsRocks and minerals articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mineral evolution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mgasparin (talk · contribs) 23:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Mgasparin: Thank you for reviewing this article. In response to your comment on criterion 2d, the history section is only of the concept of mineral evolution (and some early ideas that didn't go by the name), not mineralogy as a whole. I suppose that the first sentence misled you, although its intent was only to say that there was nothing corresponding to mineral evolution until recently. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot seems to be confused. All the links it "rescued" work fine. Unfortunately, I can't just undo it, so I'm going to revert all your edits and then put back in some of the later ones. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar): Thanks for the clarifications. The IA bot is not confused. The results from the bot test were negative. I should have clarified that in my review. As far as the history section goes, once again thank you for the clarifications. I now understand why it is there. Thanks!! Mgasparin (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed your comments I am fine to pass this article now. Congratulations!!Mgasparin (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]