Talk:Juliomys anoblepas/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Airplaneman ✈ 00:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I learned something new today. Airplaneman ✈ 00:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Sure does Y Airplaneman ✈ 00:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Yup. Airplaneman ✈ 00:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Definitely GA quality. Airplaneman ✈ 00:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)