Talk:Bigeye thresher

Bigeye thresher has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 28, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

Fishes Low‑importance

	Fish portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sharks Mid‑importance

	Sharks portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sharks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sharks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SharksWikipedia:WikiProject SharksTemplate:WikiProject Sharksshark articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bigeye thresher/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. It is a wonderful article. I have only a few comments. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Comments

Does the female have two uteruses?

Yes, all live-bearing sharks have two - rearranged the sentence to make this clearer

"It is also significant to Taiwanese fisheries, which land about 220 t annually." - what does the "t" stand for?

"metric tons" - spelling it out

—Mattisse (Talk) 17:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Comments addressed. Thanks. -- Yzx (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Clearly written b (MoS): Consistent with MoS
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Yes b (focused): Remains focused on topic
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Contratulations! An excellent article.

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Add topic