Talk:Blacktip 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
I am reviewing this article for GA. I made some copy edits which you are free to correct. Another interesting article. Well done! —Mattisse (Talk) 22:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Clearly and concisely written   b (MoS): Follows MoS  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Statements are well referenced   b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable   c (OR): No OR  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Covers the broad 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.:  
  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:  
  • Congratulations! I enjoy reading your articles.

Mattisse (Talk) 22:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply