Talk:Cyptotrama asprata/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. I have only a few minor comments. It is another one of your excellent articles. The pictures are wonderful.
 * Comments
 * The article is a little hard-going for the general reader with all the dense terminology. I add a wikilink or two which you are free to remove.
 * I am uncertain what this means: "or may be granular-covered with small particles." Could you clarify?

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 18:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have changed the wording to reduce (I hope) the technicality of the description section. My habit has been to try to explain a technical term in an accessible way, but include the technical word parenthetically&mdash;but sometimes I forget to do this. Thanks for another review. Sasata (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

Congratulations!
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): Concisely written b (MoS): Follows relevant MoS guidelines
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Reliably sourced  c (OR): No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Cover major areas b (focused): Remains focused on topic
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: Neutral
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.: Stable
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: Pass
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: Pass
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: Pass

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 19:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)