This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm hoping to bring this article to FAC soon. It's quite thoroughly sourced but I know there are some statements that still need references, which I think I can do. In the meantime, I'd like to get feedback on comprehensiveness, accuracy, and neutrality of content. Copyediting and/or feedback on clarity and presentation would also be appreciated.
Thanks, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider moving the article to Sea Otter and capitalizing the common name throughout the article (as well as the common name of all other species in the article). - UtherSRG (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a note, I've passed this article for GA status. bibliomaniac15 22:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]