Talk:Northern rosella

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Kostas20142 (talk · contribs) 12:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I will gladly take up and review this nomination --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article's prose is clear and well written, with no grammatical errors or misspellings.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Fully compliant with the guidelines described.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Layout guidelines are now followed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All references to inline citations are from reliable sources known scientific publications etc.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research found.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No plagiarism or copyright violations found. The supplementary automated check and comparison also indicates no violation.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All main aspects of the topic are sufficiently covered by the article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article's size is appropriate. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No editorial bias or other related issues found in this article.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Very stable article: No edit wars or unproductive contributions found in its recent history.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are tagged appropriately with their license status. No non-free content that demands fair use rationale found.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images are relevant to the topic, with appropriate captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Article meets GA=criteria. Once you are ready, please do feel free to request peer review for FA

comments

• think that the references section is too long. How about splitting it and have 2 columns instead?

Already done by ‎Finnusertop. --Kostas20142 (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think the language of reference #2 should be included, if not a translation of the title.

language Latin parameter added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.