Talk:Nepal house martin

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Reviewer: Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Very well written!
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Very well sourced, one of the better GA's I've read in a while.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I learned a bit about this species I had never heard of before today, all bases are covered!
 * 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):
 * Although I'm not a big "image guy", if you want to move this up to FAC, you might want to consider a picture of the nest in that section, a minor point, but it could help the article, the ones on Commons didn't appear High-res enough to use as a thumbnail, so I didn't add one.
 * 1) Overall: Good job! I enjoyed doing this one!
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall: Good job! I enjoyed doing this one!
 * Pass/Fail: