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 ]
Discussion[ edit ]
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 ]