Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Aquaporin/1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept; issues resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2017 interestingly enough. there's refimprove tags for NPA motif and ar/R selectivity filter sections, there's also some uncited areas and some other tags like who?, original research, and clarification needed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I've looked over the paper and there's actually very little wrong with it. It is richly cited, and the basic facts are covered (I see) by many of the research papers cited, some of which are review articles summarizing much earlier research. The tags were mostly very minor (fixed now); there were a couple of uncited chunks which I've removed. I've also stripped out an unnecessary image and expanded one or two citations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've also reached out to a few academics on the topic who might be able to provide some feedback and ideas for general improvement (either directly here, or via emailing me). I realise external comments aren't standard for the GAR process, but I thought I'd see if it could be a useful addition to the editors who frequent WP:MolBio. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]