Talk:Nepal house martin/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Very well written!

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Very well sourced, one of the better GA's I've read in a while.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I learned a bit about this species I had never heard of before today, all bases are covered!

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Although I'm not a big "image guy", if you want to move this up to FAC, you mighht want to consider a picture of the nest in that section, a minor point, but it could help the article, the ones on Commons didn't appear High-res enough to use as a thumbnail, so I didn't add one.

7. Overall: Good job! I enjoyed doing this one!

   Pass/Fail:

Reviewer: Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)