Talk:Genes, Brain and Behavior

Genes, Brain and Behavior has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 12, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Academic Journals

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Medicine: Genetics / Neurology / Psychiatry Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Medical genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force.
	Psychiatry portal This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Molecular Biology: Genetics

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Neuroscience Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Genes, Brain and Behavior appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 August 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the journal Genes, Brain and Behavior is trying to raise standards for mouse mutant studies and reduce the unnecessary use of animals in flawed studies?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Genes, Brain and Behavior.

Wikipedia

GA Review

Article promoted - 12 July 2014.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Genes, Brain and Behavior/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TLSuda (talk · contribs) 18:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I know you've waited a few months for a review, but I have good news! I'm stuck in a tin can for 5 hours tomorrow late night UTC, so I'm going to use that time wisely to review this article. I expect to have the review posted in the early morning hours UTC the following day. (Approximately less than 36 hours from this post.) I look forward to reading and reviewing this article. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
See Prose review below.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Almost there, see Prose review below. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review

In the last sentence in the lead, change the end to: "...for free two years after publication."
The second sentence of the Overview and history section. Should end with a period quarterly. The next sentence should start with "As submissions..." Also change "...to an 8-times-a-year one..." to "...to 8-times-a-year..."
"All content is available online for free after 24 months." should be changed to "All content is available online for free 24 months after publication."
Does any source include the reason why the journal went to online only? If so, this should be included in the article.
In the reception section, the journals that cited it the most often, it lists this journal itself. I just want to make sure this is correct, that this journal is one of the top five journals that cites itself.
Are the abstracting and indexing and article categories notable or necessary? I don't think either section is encyclopedic, and probably both should be removed.

Response

Hope this is the correct way to do this, it's my first GA review :-) I have followed all of your suggestions above, except 1, the abstracting/indexing section. This is always included in articles on academic journals because most of those articles derive their notability from the inclusion in selective indexes (see WP:NJournals and WP:JWG). If you like, I could re-format it as a sentence ("Genes, Brain and Behavior is abstracted and indexed in Academic Search and Academic Search Premier, Biological Abstracts, BIOSIS Previews...."), but I think the columns format is clearer. Thanks for your efforts and for the suggestions! --Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a good article that is similar to this one, so I cannot check for sure on the abstracting/indexing. I don't think that is enough of an issue to keep this from passing. That being said, the article has pass its GA review. Congrats!, TLSuda (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria because it does not contain any information post-2014. Is anyone willing to address this issue, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Z1720, I hope to have some time this week to look into this. --Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: Did you get a chance to look at this? Z1720 (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, thanks for reminding me. I'll try to find some time this weekend. --Randykitty (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, I'm done updating/cleaning the article. Let me know if you see something that needs correction or can be improved. --Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: I would add a sentence in the lead about its reception. Other than that, I think this article is OK if no other sources can be found to discuss the journal (particularly the reception). Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. This journal has, in fact, more sources discussing the journal than most academic journals (unless they're involved in some scandal...) Authors publish in these journals, rarely about them (and even then mostly in the form of editorials in the journal itself).