Talk:Common thresher/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. Will probably take at least a couple days to mull it over.

This is an impressive GA - out of the 15 or so GAR's I've done so far, this one has been the "cleanest"; the only changes I made were small tweaks to the reference formatting (changing hyphens to endashes for page ranges, and changing the capitalization in article titles for consistency) that are not even required at GA level. Good work, and I hope the nominator continues to write more of the same! Sasata (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sasata (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

Prose is well-written. Article complies with MOS.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):

   Well-referenced to reliable sources.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Convers everything I'd expect to see for an organism article at GA-level.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. 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):

   All images have appropriate free use licenses.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: