Talk:Kauri gum/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tarret ^talk 19:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well written and easy to follow and understand.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Of the information given the article has enough sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article seems to have then main ideas about the topic well explained, well organized into a logical order.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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:

   Overall this is an interesting article, but remember that this article isn't complete yet. To become an article of FA-class, this article can greatly benefit from a section about the modern uses of Kauri Gum (Gum collecting perhaps?). Otherwise great work on this article and if possible come by WP:GAN and review an article.