Talk:Juliomys anoblepas/GA1

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

Reviewer: Airplaneman   ✈  00:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Technical terms well explained; I otherwise would not have been able to do this review :). Airplaneman   ✈  00:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All claims sourced! I know good refs are probably scarce for this topic, but the more [good refs] the better. Airplaneman   ✈  00:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I learned something new today. Airplaneman   ✈  00:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Sure does ✅ Airplaneman   ✈  00:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Yup. Airplaneman   ✈  00:11, 18 April 2010 (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):
 * Good here. Airplaneman   ✈  00:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Definitely GA quality. Airplaneman   ✈  00:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)