Talk:Greater crested tern/GA1

GA Review

I'm going to briefly put this on hold, for four minor points. But it's pretty much a pass already.

• In the lead, I'd either wikilink, explain or perhaps alter "offal" for those unfamiliar with the term, or its specific meaning here.
• In taxonomy, change "recently" because otherwise it dates that sentence too much.
• In description, do you mean "The northern subspecies T. b. velox and T. b. velox" or should one of those be something else?
• This might be a daft question, but the penultimate image, says "anchovies" in the caption, but its name is for "Pacific sardine". Is that correct?

However, it's an absolutely excellent article. Once those points are addressed, I'd either head straight for FAC, or perhaps a peer review first. Brilliant work. Well done. Peanut4 (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks for kind words. I've reworded "offal", chopped "recently". I can't believe the twin veloxes - now fixed. Changed the fish image, forgot caption -now sardines. jimfbleak (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Final review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The lead may be too long according to WP:LEAD.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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):

   I just wanted to say that the images are absolutely amazing

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This is a fantastic article. I could have easily passed it straight off and left a comment for the changes to be made. I'd thoroughly recommend a peer review or maybe even skip that stage and go to FAC. My only one minor concern would be the length of the lead, but I enjoyed reading it, and it doesn't feel right to cut it back. Peanut4 (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)