Talk:Sceriman family/GA1

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

Reviewer: KAVEBEAR (talk · contribs) 04:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Can you list Matthee 2012? The footnotes links to nowhere.KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

This article looks good. All I see is a problem with a few of the footnotes. Please fix that, ping me and I will take another look before passing. Good job.KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for reviewing this article. Just fixed the reference in question and improved another reference as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There was still a problem with the Harvard referencing style but I changed it myself. Article is good to go.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)