Talk:Cleaning symbiosis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 19:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a subject that interests me and I will be happy to review this article. I will start in the next couple of days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

First reading

My first impressions of this article are very favourable. A few points I noticed:

• The impala image caption states there are two oxpeckers whereas I think there are four in the image. --Done
• It would be nice if all the images were the same width but I appreciate that, with so many images, it is difficult to fit them in. You could instead incorporate them into an additional column in the table. Its your choice. --Done
• The table heading "Cleaner's behaviour, service" does not completely describe the contents of the column. --Done
• "Wrasse" is capitalised where it should not be (just after the table). --Done
• "... combine a little eating of parasites (beneficial to client) with (harmful to client) taking of blood, which is their favoured food. - It would be better to reposition "(harmful to client)". --Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, for some reason I couldn't see this on my watchlist.Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is of a high standard.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Layout is satisfactory, lead section summarises content well and spelling and grammar are correct.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Well referenced.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Reliable sources are used.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not that I can see.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article is thorough.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This criterion is met.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This criterion is met.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are appropriately licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are suitable and have good captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Article is of a high standard and meets the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)