Talk:Heterodontosaurus/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: 2604:2000:B949:A000:91A6:C9B7:837E:EFD1 (talk · contribs) 20:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
This article meets the criteria needed to become a "good article"; it's well written, factually accurate, and cites a large number of reliable sources. Based on the guidelines set by Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles), this page is a good article. 2604:2000:B949:A000:91A6:C9B7:837E:EFD1 (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, no comments at all? Any nitpicking is appreciated, since we'll take this to FAC afterwards. FunkMonk (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Per WP:GAREV, only registered editors are allowed to open and conduct GA reviews. Unfortunately, that means that this review cannot proceed, and is being closed, with the nomination returned to the GA reviewing pool. 2604:2000:B949:A000:91A6:C9B7:837E:EFD1, I would like to suggest that you register and get an account, but also that you gain a few months of editing experience before you attempt your next review with that account. (It is the rare article indeed that has no typos or grammatical issues, and I see no sign that it was checked for close paraphrasing, words to watch, image licensing, or that the article accurately represented its source material.) Not that I have any reason to doubt the authors, but that the reviewer needs to check all of the good article criteria. Sorry, FunkMonk; this will have to wait for a qualified reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing to be sorry about, I'd prefer a review with suggestions over a rubber-stamp pass. FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Per WP:GAREV, only registered editors are allowed to open and conduct GA reviews. Unfortunately, that means that this review cannot proceed, and is being closed, with the nomination returned to the GA reviewing pool. 2604:2000:B949:A000:91A6:C9B7:837E:EFD1, I would like to suggest that you register and get an account, but also that you gain a few months of editing experience before you attempt your next review with that account. (It is the rare article indeed that has no typos or grammatical issues, and I see no sign that it was checked for close paraphrasing, words to watch, image licensing, or that the article accurately represented its source material.) Not that I have any reason to doubt the authors, but that the reviewer needs to check all of the good article criteria. Sorry, FunkMonk; this will have to wait for a qualified reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)