From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Oakley77 (talk · contribs) 02:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well-written:
| Criteria |
Notes |
Result
|
| (a) (prose) |
As far as animal articles go, this one is good for this criteria |
✓ Pass
|
| (b) (MoS) |
Passes here |
✓ Pass
|
- Verifiable with no original research:
| Criteria |
Notes |
Result
|
| (a) (references) |
All refs are acceptable, useful, and pass. |
✓ Pass
|
| (b) (citations to reliable sources) |
All citations in article are reliable |
✓ Pass
|
| (c) (original research) |
Yes, it appears so |
✓ Pass
|
- Broad in its coverage:
| Criteria |
Notes |
Result
|
| (a) (major aspects) |
Follows textbook form for organism articles, and covers vital points well. |
✓ Pass
|
| (b) (focused) |
Indeed. |
✓ Pass
|
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
| Notes |
Result
|
| Neutral defines this article. |
✓ Pass
|
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
| Notes |
Result
|
| No edits disputes, wars, or conflicts |
✓ Pass
|
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
| Criteria |
Notes |
Result
|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) |
Creative and applicable image usage. |
✓ Pass
|
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) |
Adheres to this category. |
✓ Pass
|
| Result |
Notes
|
| ✓ Pass |
All in all, this article has the stuff to be a GA!
|
Oakley77 (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please add any related discussion here.
Oakley77 (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
This a well- done article, so I will go ahead and make it a GA!Oakley77 (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
