Talk:Common eland/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Oakley77 (talk · contribs) 02:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	As far as animal articles go, this one is good for this criteria	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Passes here	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	All refs are acceptable, useful, and pass.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	All citations in article are reliable	Pass
(c) (original research)	Yes, it appears so	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Follows textbook form for organism articles, and covers vital points well.	Pass
(b) (focused)	Indeed.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Neutral defines this article.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No edits disputes, wars, or conflicts	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Creative and applicable image usage.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Adheres to this category.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	All in all, this article has the stuff to be a GA!

Oakley77 (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here. Oakley77 (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC) This a well- done article, so I will go ahead and make it a GA!Oakley77 (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)