Talk:Hunting by cheetah

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk · contribs) 17:45, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: ActuallyElite (talk · contribs) 11:04, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be starting this review within the next couple of days. Looks like a very interesting topic!

Just checking a few marks off right now to get out of the way.

Nominator has 99% authorship.

Earwig shows a 28.1% violation, but it looks like it picked up a blog using a quote from the wikipedia page, so other than that it should be 0%.

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, and lists):

   Everything here is good. If you really wanted to, expanding the lead a bit wouldn't hurt, but it looks good as it is right now so you can decide if you'd want to or not.

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):

   The main problem I have for this section is that there are no page numbers to go with your references. Please add page numbers to your references as it looks like every source has multiple pages. Thanks for fixing the page numbers. After a quick spot check from the sources, I found no plagiarism, reference section is good, so this category should be all good here.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Hits the major aspects and stays focused on the content.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No bias found

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

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):

   There are 5 images total, all of them having suitable captions and being able to use.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Everything here looks good after fixing those page numbers. Good job with the article, it was a very interesting and cool read! Should be good to pass.

@ActuallyElite: Hi, thanks for taking this review. From your early comment, you mentioned a lack of page numbers. I've fixed this and added page numbers to every citation. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that cheetahs were once commonly tamed as hunting companions?

• Source: Buquet, Thierry (2019-12-16), "Hunting with Cheetahs at European Courts: From the Origins to the End of a Fashion", Animals and Courts, De Gruyter, pp. 17–42, doi:10.1515/9783110544794-002, ISBN 978-3-11-054479-4, archived from the original on 2026-07-25, retrieved 2026-08-03

• • ALT1: ... that hunting with tame cheetahs was once common among aristocrats, but the practice declined in the seventeenth century? Source: Buquet, Thierry (2019-12-16), "Hunting with Cheetahs at European Courts: From the Origins to the End of a Fashion", Animals and Courts, De Gruyter, pp. 17–42, doi:10.1515/9783110544794-002, ISBN 978-3-11-054479-4, archived from the original on 2026-07-25, retrieved 2026-08-03
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Chloe Cherry

Improved to Good Article status by ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 56 past nominations.

ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2026 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Recently promoted GA. ALT0 is interesting and cited. No copyvio detected. I didn't review the other hook since I assume ALT0 is your preferred version anyway. Nice work. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2026 (UTC)