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)