Talk:Cyptotrama asprata/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. I have only a few minor comments.

Comments

• The article is a little hard-going for the general reader with all the dense terminology. I add a wikilink or two which you are free to remove.
• I am uncertain what this means: "or may be granular-covered with small particles." Could you clarify?

It is another one of your excellent articles. The pictures are wonderful.

—Mattisse (Talk) 18:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have changed the wording to reduce (I hope) the technicality of the description section. My habit has been to try to explain a technical term in an accessible way, but include the technical word parenthetically—but sometimes I forget to do this. Thanks for another review. Sasata (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Concisely written b (MoS): Follows relevant MoS guidelines

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Reliably sourced c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Cover major areas b (focused): Remains focused on topic

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Neutral

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass

Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 19:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)