Talk:Histoire Naturelle/GA1

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

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 16:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Poor quality check
This article is not of poor quality. It lacks,  ,   and tags of such caliber.

Prose, punctuation, spelling, grammar, capitalization
This article has correct prose. It also has correct punctuation, spelling, grammar and capitalization.

References and plagiarism
This article does not plagiarise and is properly referenced.

Headings
Although this is not part of the good article criteria, I suggest that the Table of Contents is hidden because it covers the page and is hard to navigate. It could also be limited to just one heading. Again, this is not part of the good article criteria but is just a suggestion.

Coverage and point of view
The article broadly covers the subject, with no unnecessary digressions. The article does go into detail where neccessary. This article is written from a very neutral point of view.

Stability
This article is very stable and has a history of no edit wars.

Overview
This article is ready to be a good article. However, I have a few suggestions. One, the table of contents is hidden or limited to one entry. Also, the overwhelming majority of edits is made by one person, and I hope that changes.
 * Many thanks for the review. I'm sure other people will soon dive in. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)