Jump to content

Talk:Juliomys anoblepas/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Airplaneman 00:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Technical terms well explained; I otherwise would not have been able to do this review :). Airplaneman 00:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    All claims sourced! I know good refs are probably scarce for this topic, but the more [good refs] the better. Airplaneman 00:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    I learned something new today. Airplaneman 00:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Sure does checkY Airplaneman 00:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Yup. Airplaneman 00:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 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):
    Good here. Airplaneman 00:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Definitely GA quality. Airplaneman 00:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]