GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Guettarda (talk · contribs) 01:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've already gone through this pretty carefully for the DYK, I'll give this a shot. Guettarda (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

Location and access

[edit]

Animals

[edit]

(more later) Guettarda (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll respond to that when you get around to it. In the meantime I will take a crack at the stuff you've mentioned so far. jp×g 03:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: