Jump to content

Talk:Phedina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articlePhedina was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 11, 2013Good article nomineeListed
April 24, 2013Featured topic candidatePromoted
December 14, 2021Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Delisted good article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Phedina/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 17:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll take this article for review, and should have my full comments up within a day. Dana boomer (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • Cited texts, the Maggs ref (Olive White-Eye Recovery Program Annual Report 2008–09) is deadlinking
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Overall very nice, just a few minor prose issues. I'm placing the review on hold until these can be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dana, thanks for reviewing. I've removed the url from Maggs, it's a RL publication anyway, so it was just a courtesy link. I look forward to your further comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review, I hope I got everything Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, everything looks good, so I am passing the article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, I'll bundle it up and send it to FTC now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]