Talk:Nki National Park/GA1

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Hmm. Needs a bt of work before becoming a GA.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Very nice. reminds me of 2002 Bou'in-Zahra. New FA? :) But there are issues:

• It is a consequence of the late 1980s economic depression in Cameroon. — Consequence? Not the right word.
  • Hmm, I don't see the problem, but "result" works just as good. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 20:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Also, square km (km with 2), unless used in parantheses, needs to be changed to square kilometers.
  • Done. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 20:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Of these, the yellow-bellied form of Stiphrornis erythrothorax is widespread. This needs tweaking, the end of the sentence is very awkward.
  • The ending seems fine to me. What exactly is the problem? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 20:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done :Alright, we're all done here. —Sunday ^Scribe 23:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Not really much technical stuff here. Check.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References are good. I know not that much comes up for african stuff, so I'll let the numbers slide.

   B. 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):

   I'll pass this — after this question: In reference number 5, did this information come from the excerpt or the actual thing?

• • That's the name of the article. It's a letter to the editor from the Congo Basin. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 20:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done:Alright, done here too. —Sunday ^Scribe 23:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

1. C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Fix them, and this article will be a GA. Normal process, Ed.

—Sunday ^Scribe 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, we're all done here. —Sunday ^Scribe 23:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)