Talk:Le Règne Animal/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 14:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Obvious large mistakes
[edit]There are no obvious large mistakes. In addition, this article lacks {{POW}}, {{unreferenced}}, {{citation needed}} or tags of similar sort.
Punctuation, capitalization, spelling, grammar and prose
[edit]The punctuation, capitalization, spelling and grammar is correct. This article talks about the book in good prose.
Lead section
[edit]The lead section accurately condenses the article and gives a good, proper introduction communicated through prose.
Referencing and plagiarism
[edit]The referencing is correct. There are all reliable sources. The article does not copy text without attributing its source. It doesn't plagiarize at all in any way.
Comprehensiveness
[edit]This article is broad and discusses every important part in the book. It is very comprehensive. It occasionally goes into detail, but only because that is necessary.
Point of view
[edit]This article is written from a neutral point of view.
Stability
[edit]This article is stable, so stable that there is not a single undo in its history.
Overview
[edit]This article is great to be a good article. I have a suggestion that is not part of the Good article criteria, but is still valid. Only five users has contributed to this article, and User:Chiswick Chap has made the overwhelming majority of edits. It would be nice if other editors would make lots of edits and help a lot. However, this article is still good article material. This article is perfect to be a good article.
- Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- You welcome! I only did what was right. This article should have been a good article after the first review! Gug01 (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Gug 01
- Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)