GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Gug01 ( talk · contribs) 21:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Before I can even comprehensively review the article, there are two problems I will give the nominator three days to fix:
If not addressed in 3 days, I'll be forced to fail the GA, which is a pity since I didn't even comprehensively review it yet. Needs to be fixed.
This article has good prose. The article has a lead that serves is purpose, and complies with the manual of style.
Gug01 (
talk)
00:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This article contains a list of references in accordance to the manual of style, is referenced properly, and contains no original research. In addition, the images are properly licensed. These images are also relevant to the topic, and they have suitable captions.
Gug01 (
talk)
00:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This article presents all facts from a neutral point of view.
Gug01 (
talk)
00:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This article is mostly broad in coverage and does not go into unnecessary detail. However, the "Ecology" section needs expansion, because no way a good article could have a vital section contain next to no information. If this is not fixed in 7 days, I will have to fail the article.
Gug01 (
talk)
01:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Would pass the article except for the problem of coverage.
Gug01 (
talk) 01:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Because of the improvement to the ecology section, the article is good to be a good article.
Gug01 (
talk)
21:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Gug01 ( talk · contribs) 21:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Before I can even comprehensively review the article, there are two problems I will give the nominator three days to fix:
If not addressed in 3 days, I'll be forced to fail the GA, which is a pity since I didn't even comprehensively review it yet. Needs to be fixed.
This article has good prose. The article has a lead that serves is purpose, and complies with the manual of style.
Gug01 (
talk)
00:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This article contains a list of references in accordance to the manual of style, is referenced properly, and contains no original research. In addition, the images are properly licensed. These images are also relevant to the topic, and they have suitable captions.
Gug01 (
talk)
00:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This article presents all facts from a neutral point of view.
Gug01 (
talk)
00:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This article is mostly broad in coverage and does not go into unnecessary detail. However, the "Ecology" section needs expansion, because no way a good article could have a vital section contain next to no information. If this is not fixed in 7 days, I will have to fail the article.
Gug01 (
talk)
01:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Would pass the article except for the problem of coverage.
Gug01 (
talk) 01:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Because of the improvement to the ecology section, the article is good to be a good article.
Gug01 (
talk)
21:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)