Talk:Asemonea clara

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Asemonea clara/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 19:10, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 22:23, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I'll review this article shortly. Tomobe03 (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

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, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, lists, and tables):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline 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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions and alt text):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Remarks

• Earwig's Copyvio Detector gives the article all clear
• Article history indicates no edit wars - the article is stable.
• MOS:UNITNAMES determines that units should be spelled out in prose at least at the first mention. I have tweaked the abbr= parameter myself on the first instances of the convert template in the lede and the body. - no further action required.
• No MOS issues other than the one noted above.
• Prose is understandable, grammatically correct, easy to follow.
• The article reads neutral, sufficiently broad and sufficiently focused.