Talk:Galápagos tortoise/GA1

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

Reading through the article, I'm going to fail the GA nomination. The article fails on a number of scores: I would suggest getting a copy-edit or peer review before making a Good Article nomination. The main reason to fail it is the lack of references. But the prose would benefit from a fresh pair of eyes.
 * The prose and grammar suffers from some poor areas and others that are quite awkward. Just a few examples include
 * "They have a very large shells (carapace) made of bone which is an integral part of the skeleton."
 * "On the wetter islands, the tortoises migrate down the gentle mountain slopes after the wet season to feed on the grass-covered plains and they climb back to feed on grasses of the mountain meadows in the dry season (the increased precipitation at that altitude keeps the grasses watered)"
 * "Clearly then, they are able to vocalise."
 * "This happens during aggressive encounters, whilst righting themselves if turned upside down and particularly males in mating ("rhythmic groans")"
 * "Lonesome George is the only known individual of the Pinta Island Tortoise"
 * "In contrast, the eggs are deposited randomly into cracks in rocky areas,."
 * "Contrarily, "The old ones seem generally to die from accidents, as from falling down precipices: at least, several of the inhabitants told me, that they never found one dead without some evident cause.""
 * "In the seventeenth century, pirates started to use Galápagos as resupply base,"
 * "Overall, 2500 individuals of a all breeds have been reintroduced to the islands."
 * The article does not follow the correct layout. See WP:LAYOUT
 * Correct dashes are not followed. See WP:DASH.
 * Many of the sections are unreferenced.
 * References should be placed directly after punctuation marks. See WP:CITE.
 * Also see WP:CITE for how to correctly annotate references.
 * Numerals less than ten should be spelt out. See WP:MOSNUM.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 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:
 * Peanut4 (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Peanut4 (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Peanut4 (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)