Talk:Chicken/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DocZach (talk · contribs) 15:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking this on. I look forward to your comments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

I believe this article meets the criterion for a Good Article. It is brief, provides a decent overview of the topic, includes many reliable sources, has images which provide for easy and vivid reading, and stays relevant to the topic. The sources are used appropriately, with citations being provided after claims are made. One such example is the citation in the Description section after "Chickens are relatively large birds, active by day. The body is round, the legs are unfeathered, and the wings are short." The source provided is to Smithosonian, a known reliable source: https://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/domestic-chicken. The claim outlined in the article is supported by the evidence provided, as are other claims as well. I did not detect any plaigarism or deceptive editing. The article is structured in a very organized and broad way, and it is not too long or too short. The writer has many featured and good articles, and his excellent writing style is very obvious - and I believe that this is yet another one of his great articles. Therefore, I believe there is a sufficient reason to classify this article as a Good Article, and I applaud and congratulate the writer on his work.