Talk:Blacknose shark/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Mattisse in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): The prose is clear. One suggestion would be to use alternative words for "incurrent" and "excurrent", as I am not sure if most readers would understand these terms. Also, a definition of "light tackle" would be appreciated.   b (MoS): Follows MoS  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Well referenced   b (citations to reliable sources): The references are to reliable sources.   c (OR): No OR  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Covers the major areas   b (focused): Remains focused on topic  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: NPOV  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.: Stable  
  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:  

A very nice article. (I am learning about sharks!)

Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply