Talk:Cyptotrama asprata/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. I have only a few minor comments.
- Comments
- The article is a little hard-going for the general reader with all the dense terminology. I add a wikilink or two which you are free to remove.
- I am uncertain what this means: "or may be granular-covered with small particles." Could you clarify?
It is another one of your excellent articles. The pictures are wonderful.
—Mattisse (Talk) 18:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have changed the wording to reduce (I hope) the technicality of the description section. My habit has been to try to explain a technical term in an accessible way, but include the technical word parenthetically—but sometimes I forget to do this. Thanks for another review. Sasata (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Final GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): Concisely written
b (MoS): Follows relevant MoS guidelines
- a (prose): Concisely written
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): Well referenced
b (citations to reliable sources): Reliably sourced
c (OR): No OR
- a (references): Well referenced
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): Cover major areas
b (focused): Remains focused on topic
- a (major aspects): Cover major areas
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias: Neutral
- Fair representation without bias: Neutral
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.: Stable
- No edit wars etc.: Stable
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail: Pass
- Pass/Fail: Pass
Congratulations!