Article (edit | visual edit | history ) · Article talk (edit | history ) · Watch
Reviewer: Oakley77 (talk · contribs ) 02:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
ReviewWell-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
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
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
Neutral : it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.Notes Result Neutral defines this article. ✓ Pass
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
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 ResultNotes ✓ 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)