Talk:UA 8699/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Airplaneman ✈ 19:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- Prose is great!
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- I'd like to see the passage Marsupials date back to the Eocene in Australia and Africa and to the Paleocene in South America; although Cretaceous marsupials have been recorded there, none of the records are unambiguous. Marsupials were certainly present in the Northern Hemisphere during the late Cretaceous. gain another reference or two (I know it is already supported by ref #1). You might be able to find them in Marsupial. Otherwise, my only (picky) gripe is that this article seems to rely on only a few published sources. For possible FA status, it'd be great to get a couple more refs, although I know they are probably scarce for this particular topic.
- The reference at the end supports the entire paragraph; an extra citation would be redundant. It's true the article doesn't use many sources, but I don't know of any others that say anything about this little tooth. Ucucha 19:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds good; I'll pass it. Airplaneman ✈ 20:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- The reference at the end supports the entire paragraph; an extra citation would be redundant. It's true the article doesn't use many sources, but I don't know of any others that say anything about this little tooth. Ucucha 19:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to see the passage Marsupials date back to the Eocene in Australia and Africa and to the Paleocene in South America; although Cretaceous marsupials have been recorded there, none of the records are unambiguous. Marsupials were certainly present in the Northern Hemisphere during the late Cretaceous. gain another reference or two (I know it is already supported by ref #1). You might be able to find them in Marsupial. Otherwise, my only (picky) gripe is that this article seems to rely on only a few published sources. For possible FA status, it'd be great to get a couple more refs, although I know they are probably scarce for this particular topic.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- No images, but that's fine. They'd be a nice addition, but are not necessary if they can't be found.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- As the only issue was addressed, I am happy to pass this article as a GA. Airplaneman ✈ 20:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
