Talk:Zanzibar red colobus/GA1

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

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Overall, the prose is very well written and easy to read. I've made a few minor grammatical adjustments here and there, so there's nothing major that really needs work.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article is adequately cited using inline citations to reliable sources.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article is complete and covers the topic well.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article is written neutral and meets WP:NPOV guidelines and requirements.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No evidence of reverting or edit warring.
 * 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):
 * The image 'File:JCBCP logo.png' needs a fair-use rationale. Its caption is a bit long; see if it can be shortened to be more concise. There are no captions on the two images in the 'behavior' section.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I think the article meets the GA criteria and can be promoted once the issue with the images is resolved. I will put it on hold at WP:GAN until that is solved. WTF? (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, WTF. I've left a message for the original image uploader, but they've been idle for most of this month. I'll edit down the caption, but we may need to ditch the image altogether if the uploader can't provide the fair-use rationale. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Doesn't look like the uploader will respond at this point. Though, now that I think of it, for non-free corporate logos to be used under fair-use, our policy really only allows the fair-use to be used on one article. Usually, that article would be about the corporation or organization itself. So, in this case, I would think the best bet would be to remove the logo from this article, and the article could be promoted. I don't think the logo is really necessary anyway, for an article that's about a particular species. WTF? (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Image is removed. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Article passed. Nice work! WTF? (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)