Talk:Miniopterus zapfei

Miniopterus zapfei has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 21, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Mammals: Bats Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Bats Task Force (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Miniopterus zapfei/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this page, to see if it meets the qualifications for Good Article status. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Things seem good here, for being well-written: the article does not appear to possess any of the quick-fail criteria, for one thing. On further inspection, it's lead section is good, and its layout seems alright; the sections are appropriately labelled, and the paragraphs are none too long or short; everything is clear and easy to read and understand. There aren't any misleading words or expressions, and no bias, and not counting the references and the bibliography, there is no list to worry about in the article. I will be checking it for spelling and grammar, in a moment... Wilhelmina Will (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Even better; I made a few corrections to the grammar where I saw fit, and I also wikified it a little more. Along the way, I can quickly cross out the possibility of a stability issue; until my corrections, the article had not been edited in over half a month, and was mostly edited by one user; no disputing edits between that user or the others appear to have taken place. I think it also checks against the rest of the criteria, but I want to go over it once more to be sure. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Indeed, this article is well-cited; all sources are reliable, there is no original research, and the article is not "crufty" so to speak; that is, it sticks to the topic and does not go into unnecessary detail. Finally, it seems to cover all importance encyclopedic aspects of the topic, for which information is available. Congratulations to Ucucha; I think he's got another winner, here! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria as listed on the GA criteria page

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content;

and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.